,i..;|:,;.. 


)tiirf|{iijMF( 


i!!!!i!!l!i 


ilHiii 


CONSCIENCE   AND   CHRIST 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/consciencechristOOrashrich 


CONSCIENCE  &  CHRIST 


SIX  LECTURES 
ON  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS 


BY 

HASTINGS   RASHDALL 

D.LiTT.,  LL.b.,  D.C.L. 

FELLOW  AND  LECTURER  OF  NEW  COLLEGE,  OXFORD 

FELLOW  OF  THE  BRITISH  ACADEMY 

CANON  RSSIDBNTIARY  OF  HEREFORD 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

1916 


?7  f 


PrmUd  %H  Grtai  Brittmi  by  WQham  Bnudon  6*  Son^  Plymo%iik 


TO 

THE   PRESIDENT 

AND 

THEOLOGICAL    FACULTY 

OF  OBERLIN  COLLEGE,  OHIO 
U.S.A. 

THESE  PAGES 
ARE  GRATEFULLY  DEDICATED 


341159 


PREFACE 

THE  present  lectures  were  delivered  as  the 
Haskell  Lectures  in  the  Theological  Seminary  of 
Oberlin  College,  Ohio,  U.S.A.,  during  the  autumn  of 
1913.  They  would  have  been  pubUshed  earlier  but  for 
the  war.  They  were  delivered  very  much  as  they  stand, 
with  a  few  omissions.  I  have  thought  it  best  to  add 
considerable  notes  and  appendices  rather  than  to  enlarge 
the  lectures  to  an  extent  which  would  in  several  cases 
have  involved  complete  re-writing. 

It  may  be  desirable  briefly  to  explain  the  design  of 
this  little  work.  For  more  than  thirty  years  the 
present  writer  has  been  a  University  teacher  of 
Philosophy,  devoting  himself  especially  to  Moral 
Philosophy.  He  has  also  been  to  some  extent  a 
student  of  Theology.  He  has  been  struck  by  the 
different  tone  in  which  moral  questions  are  dealt  with 
by  Philosophers  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  Theologians 
and  preachers  on  the  other.  The  Moral  Philosopher, 
if  he  is  not  one  of  those  who  explain  away  Morality 
altogether,  usually  holds  that  Morality  means  the 
following  of  Conscience.  In  theological  books  and 
sermons  it  is  as  commonly  assumed  that  the  supreme 


viii  Preface 

rule  for  a  Christian  should  be  to  follow  Christ.  The 
writer  beheves  that  there  is  truth  in  both  principles, 
but  it  is  obvious  that  this  position  involves  a  problem 
as  to  the  relation  between  the  two  authorities — and  a 
problem  not  very  often  expUcitly  dealt  with.  That  is 
the  problem  with  which  these  lectures  are  mainly 
occupied. 

There  seems  to  be  an  especial  call  for  some  attempt 
at  a  systematic  enquiry  into  the  subject  at  the  present 
moment,  for  a  disposition  has  recently  been  mani- 
fested in  more  than  one  quarter  to  disparage  the  moral 
teaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  supposed  discovery 
that  the  teaching  of  Jesus  consisted  mainly  in 
"  Eschatology  "  has  led  to  the  adoption  of  an  almost 
contemptuous  attitude  towards  His  ethical  teaching 
on  the  part  of  writers  who  describe  that  teaching  as 
a  mere  "  Interimsethik "  of  Uttle  present  value  or 
significance  ;  while  (strange  to  say)  the  tendency  has 
been  to  some  extent  welcomed  on  the  part  of  certain 
Theologians  of  quite  a  different  school  because  they 
discern  in  it  a  confirmation  of  the  position  that  there 
is  nothing  particularly  characteristic  in  this  part  of 
our  Lord's  teaching,  and  that  it  is  only  in  the  dogmatic 
teaching  (to  be  fomid  chiefly  in  the  Epistles  and  in  the 
later  Creeds)  that  the  true  essence  of  the  Christian 
Religion  is  to  be  discovered.  They  hope  therefore 
that  they  have  discovered  in  this  *'  eschatological  " 
tendency  of  modem  Criticism  a  new  weapon  against 
the  old-fashioned  "  Liberal  Protestantism  "  which  is 


Preface  ix 

accused  of  making  too  much  of  the  actual  teaching  of 
Christ  and  too  httle  of  the  doctrine  about  His  Person 
and  work.  The  present  writer  is  not  one  of  those  (if 
indeed  there  are  such  persons)  who  beheve  that  Chris- 
tianity consists  solely  in  the  ethical  teaching  of  its 
Founder,  but  he  does  believe  that  any  true  repre- 
sentation of  Christianity  must  treat  it  as  a  Rehgion 
rooted  and  grounded  in  Ethics.  He  does  strongly  hold 
that  any  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Person  which  does  not 
base  itself  primarily  upon  the  appeal  which  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  makes  to  the  conscience  of  mankind  rests 
upon  an  extremely  precarious  foundation. 

There  are  two  or  three  points  which  I  would  especi- 
ally invite  the  reader  of  these  pages  to  bear  in  mind  : 

I.  The  lectures  are  confined  to  the  ethical  side  of 
Christ's  teaching.  I  have  imposed  these  Umitations 
upon  myself  partly  because  in  so  short  a  course  it 
was  impossible  to  deal  with  the  whole  of  our  Lord's 
teaching,  and  partly  because  it  was  only  by  isolating 
the  ethical  side  of  that  teaching  that  it  seemed  possible 
to  discuss  with  thoroughness  and  definiteness  the 
question  whether  or  not  the  ethical  ideal  of  our  Lord 
can  still  be  accepted  by  the  modern  world  as  the  expres- 
sion of  its  highest  Morality,  and  to  ask  in  what  relation 
this  ideal  stands  to  that  continuous  teaching  of  Con- 
science in  which,  as  I  believe,  there  is  no  less  certainly 
contained  a  revelation — a  progressive  and  evolving 
revelation — of  God.  That  there  may  seem  to  be  some- 
thing a  little  artificial  and  unnatural  in  so  isolating  the 


X  Preface 

moral  teaching  of  One  for  whom  Morality  stood  in 
such  close  and  intimate  relation  to  ReUgion,  I  am  well 
aware  ;  but  this  seemed  to  be  the  only  way  in  which 
the  particular  problem  on  which  I  wished  to  concen- 
trate attention  could  be  discussed  without  its  be- 
coming mixed  up  with  many  others. 

2.  The  reader — particularly  any  Theologian  into 
whose  hands  the  book  may  fall — is  asked  to  remember 
that  this  little  book  is  not  intended  primarily  as  a 
contribution  towards  the  solution  of  critical  or  his- 
torical problems.  I  should  have  preferred  to  confine 
myself  to  purely  pliilosophical  and  ethical  questions, 
but  it  is  impossible  to  examine  the  proper  attitude  of 
the  modern  Conscience  to  the  teaching  of  our  Lord 
without  asking  what  in  point  of  fact  this  teaching 
was;  and  I  have  therefore  felt  bound — somewhat 
reluctantly — to  take  notice  of,  and  to  pass  judgement 
upon,  not  a  few  critical  questions,  and  still  more 
often  to  recognize  the  existence  of  alternative  critical 
f>ossibihties.  The  critical  Theologian  will  be  the  first 
to  appreciate  the  fact  that  these  questions  about 
sources  and  authenticity  are  not  yet  settled  with  such 
a  degree  of  certainty  that  a  writer  who  wishes,  as  far 
as  possible,  to  look  at  the  matter  from  the  point  of 
view  of  Moral  Philosophy  can  simply  take  over  on 
authority  some  established  view,  and  confine  himself 
to  examining  the  ethical  teaching  involved  in  the 
sayings  accepted  as  genuine.  Most  critics  will  admit 
that  a  certain  degree  of  probability  is  all  that  can 


Preface  xi 

ever  be  hoped  for  on  many  of  these  questions.  They 
will  therefore  readily  forgive  the  writer  for  not  ex- 
pressing confident  opinions  on  the  more  disputed 
points. 

And  here  it  may  be  convenient  to  say  that  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  I  accept  the  now 
generally  received  two-document  hypothesis.  I 
believe,  that  is  to  say,  that  the  writers  of  the  first  and 
third  Gospels  derive  the  greater  part  of  their  informa- 
tion from  two  documents  :  (i)  The  Gospel  of  St.  Mark 
in  a  form  very  nearly  identical  with  that  which  it 
has  now  assumed  ;  (2)  A  work  (consisting  principally 
perhaps  of  sayings)  which  used  to  be  spoken  of  as 
"  the  Logia,"  but  is  now  generally  known  as  "  Q/' 
Such  a  document  is  generally  believed  to  be  the  source 
of  those  sayings  or  discourses  found  in  the  first  and 
third  Gospels,  but  not  found  in  St.  Mark.  Besides 
these  each  Evangelist  doubtless  used  other  sources ; 
in  particular  we  may  recognize  an  important  document 
used  by  St.  Luke  in  those  passages,  including  some 
of  our  Lord's  most  characteristic  parables,  which  are 
peculiar  to  his  Gospel.  Upon  these  matters  there 
is  practically  now  a  consensus  ;  but  on  such  difficult 
questions  as  the  exact  ''  limits  "  of  ''  Q,"  the  relation 
of  St.  Luke's  source  to  *'  Q,"  whether  St.  Mark  had 
''  Q  ''  before  him  or  not,  I  have  not  felt  myself  bound 
to  express  definite  opinions.  I  am  well  aware  that  no 
opinion  on  such  matters  can  have  much  value  which 
is  not  based  on  years  of  special  study. 


^  Preface 

3.  I  am  fully  conscious  of  the  incompleteness  of 
the  book.  On  the  critical  side  many  sayings  of  our 
Lord  which  are  not  of  primary  importance  for  ascer- 
taining the  nature  and  value  of  His  ethical  teaching 
are  not  noticed  at  all.  The  treatment  of  many  ques- 
tions of  philosophical  Ethics  which  incidentally  arise  is 
so  brief  that  I  should  hardly  have  hked  to  let  the  book 
go  forth  at  all  but  for  the  fact  that  I  have  already 
discussed  many  of  them  at  considerable  length  m  a 
previous  work,  The  Theory  of  Good  and  Evil.^  I  trust 
I  shall  be  excused  for  rather  frequently  referring  the 
reader  who  is  desirous  of  a  more  thorough  discussion 
of  particular  points  to  a  chapter  in  that  work. 

My  obUgations  to  many  writers  upon  the  Ufe  and 
teaching  of  our  Lord  and  upon  questions  of  Gospel 
criticism  will  be  sufficiently  obvious.  The  quotations 
from  one  of  them  are  so  extensive  that  a  word  of 
gratitude  and  apology  may  seem  called  for.  I  have 
been  tempted  to  make  frequent  quotations  from 
Mr.  Claude  Montefiore's  Synoptic  Gospels  partly  by 
their  intrinsic  excellence,  and  partly  because,  when 
questions  arise  as  to  the  originahty  of  our  Lord's 
teaching  and  its  relation  to  earlier  Jewsh  Ethics,  the 
verdict  of  one  who  occupies  the  position  of  Liberal 
Judaism  is  peculiarly  free  from  the  suspicion  attaching 
to  the  writings  of  Christian  Theologians.  Mr.  Monte- 
fiore,  in  spite  of  his  reverent  appreciation  of  our  Lord's 

>  Also  in  a  very  brief  form  in  a  little  volume  on  Ethics  published 
in  The  People's  Books  Series. 


Preface  xi 

I 
teaching,  cannot  be  accused  of  being  a  ''  Christian 

Apologist  "  ;  while  he  is  wholly  free  from  that  tendency 

to  belittle  or  explain  aw^ay  the  distinctive  elements  in 

the  teaching  of  Jesus  which  is  unhappily  at  the  present 

moment   by  no   means   confined  to  ultra-"  liberal '' 

Theologians. 

I  have  been  greatly  helped  in  the  original  preparation 

of  these  lectures  by  the  Rev.  J.  R.  Wilkinson,  Rector 

of  Winford  near  Bristol,  and  in   their  revision  for 

publication  by  the  Rev.  C.  W.  Emmet,  Vicar  of  West 

Hendred,  Oxon,  and  by  my  colleague,  Canon  Streeter,  to 

all  of  whom  I  owe  many  important  suggestions.     I 

must  also  gratefully  acknowledge  valuable  assistance 

in  the  final  revision  of  the  proofs  from  the  Rev.  W.  M. 

Browne,  Chaplain  to  the  Bishop  of  Hereford,  and  the 

Rev.  G.  L.  H.  Harvey,  Vicar  of  Allensmore,  Hereford. 


H.  RASHDALL 


The  Close,  Hereford 
March,  1916 


-* 


CONTENTS 


LECTURE   I 
Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority 

PAGE 

Contrast  between  the  philosophical  and  the  theological 
attitude  towards  Ethics :  philosophers  appeal  to  Con- 
science, theologians  to  the  Bible  or  the  Church  or  to  the 
authority  of  Christ  alone         ......         i 

A  problem  (rarely  faced)  arises  :  What  is  the  relation  between 
the  two  sorts  of  Authority  or  between  Moral  Philosophy  and 
Moral  Theology  or  Christian  Ethics  .....         5 

Nature  and  authority  of  Conscience  :  not  a  "  Moral  Sense  " 
but  a  kind  of  Reason,  which  possesses  objective  validity  .         7 

The  Ethical  Criterion  :  Intuitionism  v.  Utilitarianism. 
Utilitarianism  is  right  in  insisting  that  actions  are  right  or 
wrong  so  far  as  they  do  or  do  not  promote  a  universal  Good, 
but  this  Good  is  not  pleasure  only,  but  includes  other 
elements,  especially  moral  goodness,  and  (in  subordination 
thereto)  intellectual  culture,  etc.  ("  Ideal  Utilitarianism  ")  .       10 

If  Conscience  can  decide  moral  questions,  where  is  there 
room  for  Authority  ?  Reply :  (a)  ends  are  self-evident,  but 
to  decide  on  means  wants  more  experience  than  the  average 
individual  possesses  ;  (6)  the  individual  can  only  judge  of 
goods  which  he  knows,  and  (6)  not  all  are  equally  good  judges 
of  moral  values      ........       13 

Hence  all  must  begin  by  relying  on  authority?  and  must 
remain  largely  dependent  on  the  accepted  standard  of  the 
community    .........       16 

But  this  submission  must  not  be  absolute  (as  with  some 
Hegelians)  :  moral  progress  is  effected  by  interaction  of 
individual  and  community       .  .  .  .  .  .18 

Influence  on  moral  progress  of  great  personalities  and  of  the 
historical  religions  founded  or  reformed  by  them        .  .       21 

Nature  and  limits  of  external  Authority  in  Ethics         .  .       22 


1  ConUfUs 


)  AoB 


The  aothority  rightly  claimed  lor  Jesus  Christ  cannot  rest 
upon  external  attestation  (e.g.  by  miracles)  but  must 
depend  upon  the  appeal  which  His  teaching  makes  to  the 
moral  consciousness        .......       25 

Submission  to  external  Authority  never  is,  or  ought  to  be, 
unlimited       .........       31 

Our  Lord  Himself  appeals  to  Conscience  -33 

LECTURE  II 
Ethics  ai«d  Eschatology 

A  recent  change  in  the  attitude  of  Theologians  towards  the 
eschatological  sayings  of  our  Lord  compels  us  to  deal  with 
the  question.  It  is  contended  that  the  substance  of 
His  teaching  was  Eschatology.  i.e.  the  announcement  of  a 
speedy  catastrophic  judgement,  and  that  His  ethical  teaching 
was  a  mere  "  interimsethik  "  of  little  value  to  the  modem 
world 36 

Examinatioo  of  these  ideas :  (i)  Not  all  the  eschatological 
sayings  can  be  trusted  :  the  eschatological  element  smaller 
than  is  now  often  contended  ...... 

(a)  Side  by  side  with  a  future  Kingdom  Jesus  recognizes  a 
present  Kingdom  which  was  to  advance  gradually :  "  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  within  you."  etc.        .  .  .  •31 

(3)  "  llie  Kingdom  of  God."  in  whatever  way  it  was  to  come, 
represents  an  ethical  and  spiritual  conception  ...       55 

II  Jetus  did  expect  a  sudden  and  catastrophic  judgement  in 
the  near  future,  that  need  not  destroy  the  truth  or  value 
of  His  ethical  teaching:  the  moral  ideal  is  fundamentally 
the  same,  however  short  or  long  a  time  the  world  is  to  last .       60 

The  actual  influence  ol  the  current  Eschatology  upon  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  was  small 63 

Consequently  it  can  be  applied  to  modem  life  with  little 
adaptation 65 

Father  Tyrrell's  use  of  the  ultra-eschatological  theory : 
Christian  Ethics  cannot  be  pessimistic     ....       67 

Bearing  of  the  question  upon  the  authority  and  the  Divinity 
of  Jesus  Christ  -71 

LECTURE    111 

iHt  L-iHicAL  Teaching  of  Jbsus  Christ 

This  teaching  was  not  given  in  the  form  of  a  system,  but  that 
does  not  prevent  the  philosopher  discovering  general 
principles  in  it '77 


Contents 


xvii 


The  moral  teaching  of  Jesus  presupposes  the  advanced 
Morality  of  late  Judaism,  and  this  morality  is  in  many 
respects  higher  than  that  of  Socrates,  Plato,  and  Aristotle  : 
e.g.  as  regards  Chastity  and  Charity  ....       79 

Retrogression  and  progress  exhibited  by  the  Pharisaic 
Legalism :    Almsgiving,  care  of  poor,  sick,  etc.         .  .       85 

Differences  between  this  teaching  and  Christ's :     .  .  .94 

(i)  Attitude  of  our  Lord  towards  the  Jewish  Law.  Without 
actually  encouraging  non-observance  of  the  ceremonial 
Law,  He  practically  denied  its  eternal  moral  obligation 
and  insisted  only  on  the  ethical  commands       .  .  -95 

(2)  He  deepened,  transcended,  and  spiritualized  the  strictly 
moral  requirements  of  the  Law  ;  and  insisted  upon  the 
"  inwardness  "  of  true  Morality  :   attitude  towards  Divorce 

and  oaths     .........     loi 

(3)  He  extended  the  Jewish  idea  of  love  to  one's  neighbour 
so  as  to  make  it  include  all  mankind  :  his  teaching  in 
principle  universalistic  :   the  good  Samaritan,  etc.     .  .     loS 

The  principle  of  Human  Brotherhood,  laid  down  by  Jesus, 
must  be  accepted  as  the  fundamental  truth  of  Ethics         .      113 

To  appreciate  importance  of  the  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus 
we  must  remember  (i)  that  its  influence  is  as  much  due  to 
the  form  as  to  the  substance  .  .  .  .  .  .115 

(2)  It  must  not  be  treated  merely  as  so  many  isolated  sayings, 

but  as  a  whole :  the  ideal  embodied  in  a  character  and  a  life     116 

(3)  The  close  connexion  between  the  etliical  teaching  and  the 
strictly  religious     .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .117 

Additional  Note  on  the  Ethical  Teaching  of  Christ  in  Detail 
The  value  of  Christ's  teaching  does  not  depend  merely  upon  the 
enunciation  of  a  single  general  principle,  but  also  upon  the 
applications  and  illustrations  of  this  principle  :   attempt  to 
enumerate  the  subordinate  principles  which  follow  from  the 
law  of  Love  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .119 

(i)  Love  to  enemies  .......     120 

(2)  Forgiveness  of  injuries         .         .  .  .         .  .120 

(3)  Self-sacrifice       .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .122 

(4)  The  danger  of  riches  .         .  .  .         .  .         .123 

(5)  Humility 124 

(6)  Nature  of  the  Christian  good        .  .         .  .  .126 

(7)  Purity  :   connexion  of  this  duty  with  law  of  love  .         .     127 

(8)  The  necessity  of  Repentance        .  .  .         .         .129 

(9)  The  duty  of  making  others  better  .  .  .  .131 

(10)  The  sinfulness  of  casting  stumbling-blocks     .  .  .132 

(11)  The  danger  of  Hypocrisy      .         ,         .         .         .         •133 


PAtiB 


xviii  Contents 

LECTURE    IV 
•     Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  op  Christ 

The  most  fundamental  objections  (e.g.  Nietzsche's)  will  not 
be  considered,  but  only  those  of  persons  who  recognize  the 
obbgation  of  Altruism,  but  object  to  particular  interpreta- 
tion:! or  applications  of  the  Christian  rule  -134 

(i)  Exaggerated  self-sacrifice  ?  Tolstoi's  interpretation 
illogical 139 

(2)  Univeraal  Non-reeistanoe  is  not  a  logical  development,  nor 

did  Christ  mean  all  his  precepts  to  be  taken  literally  143 

(3)  "  Sell  all  thou  hast  " 150 

(4)  Christ's  teaching  not  in  the  stricter  sense  ascetic  :  fasting     156 

(5)  Attitude  towards  celibacy 162 

(6)  Attitude  towards  Knowledge  and  Culture :  Christ's 
teaching  does  require  continuous  development,  and  has 
received  that  development  through  the  working  of  God's 
Spirit  in  the  Church 163 

AddiHonai  Noi$  an  Soms  Detailed  Objections  to  the  ^forat 
Teaching  of  Christ 

(1)  The  nnJQSt  Steward    ...  169 

(2)  The  parable  of  the  Householder  .  1 70 

(3)  The  cursing  of  the  fig-tree  ....  173 

(4)  The  violent  cleansing  of  the  Temple  173 

(5)  Alleged  harshness  :   the  Syro- Phoenician  woman  >75 

(6)  "  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs  "  177 

(7)  Alleged  depreciatioo  of  family  ties  1 78 

(8)  "  Let  the  dead  bary  their  dead  "  179 

(9)  The  denunciation  of  the  Phariseea  1 79 

(10)  The  tnggettion  of  undue  Self -exaltation  183 

(11)  Alleged  admietion  of  moral  imperfection  184 

(12)  The  marriage  feast :   humility  for  sake  of  reward  ?         .187 

(13)  Discouragement  of  Prudence :    "  Take  no  thought  for 

the  morrow " 187 

(14)  The  alleged  impoisibility  of  Univerial  Love  .  189 

LECTURE  V 

Ths  Principle  of  Development 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  can  be  accepted  as  the  supreme  guide 
for  modem  life,  but  only  on  condition  (i)  that  it  is  under- 
stood to  lay  down  principles,  not  details  of  conduct ;  (2) 
that  the  principle  of  Development  is  admitted  •     ^95 


Contents  xix 

PAGE 

fwo  kinds  of  Development  needed:  (i)  there  is  a  constant 
discovery  of  new  means  to  the  true  end  or  good         .  .196 

2)  Men's  conception  of  what  good  is  must  in  detail  be  con- 
tinually growing  and  expanding :  how  far  it  is  true  that 
the  Ethic  of  Jesus  was  "  world-renouncing,"  while  ours  is 
and  must  be  "  world-affirming  "       .  .  .  .  .199 

low  far  the  actual  morality  of  the  Christian  Church  has  been 
unduly  "  world-renouncing "  .  .  .  .  .  .     208 

low  far  the  same  can  be  said  of  Protestantism     .  .  .214 

ibandonment  of  the  "  world-renouncing  "  element  in  past 
Christianity  involves  no  abandonment  of  Christ's  own 
ideal :   Christ  and  the  "  Imitatio  Christi  "  .  .  .217 

he  best  modem  Christianity  is  partly  a  return  to  the  actual 
teaching  of  Christ,  partly  a  development  of  it  in  accordance 
with  the  true  spirit  of  it         .  .  .  .  .  .219 

lut  (i)  some  modern  Moralities  can  never  be  Christianized     222 

*.)  The  truly  Christian  development  implies  a  much  more 
complete  realization  of  Brotherhood  than  conventional 
Christianity  recognizes  .  .  .  .  .  .  .224 

Additional  Note  on  Christian  Ethics  in  the  Apostolic  Writings 

nalysis  of  the  development  given  to  our  Lord's  teaching  by 
St.  Paul  and  the  Apostolic  age  .  .  .  .  .227 

)  Explicit  teaching  of  the   Universalism  implied  by  our 
Lord     ..........     227 

)  Clear  enunciation  of  the  principle  that  all  moral  rules  are 
summed  up  in  Love        .......     228 

)  Emphasis    on    detailed    duties    and    virtues    implied    in 
Love  :   this  made  necessary  by  Gentile  Christianity  .  .     229 

)  Questions  of  Casuistry  involved  in  new  circumstances      .     230 
)  Duties  brought  into  existence  by  the  organization  of  the 
Church  .........     231 

)  Obedience  to  the  State  .  .  .  .  .  .232 

)  Patient  endurance  of  suffering       .  .  .  .  .232 

)  Application  to  duties  involved  by  particular  relations  of 

life — family  relations,  slavery,  etc.  .  .  .  .  .233 

ow  far  there  was  any  element  of  decline  in  ethical  teaching  : 
(i)  Attitude  towards  persecutors  in  Apocalypse ;  (2)  expecta- 
tion of  Parousia  ;  (3)  growth  of  asceticism  ;  (4)  St.  Paul's 
view  of  Marriage  ;    (5)  Germs  of  intolerance      .  .  .     234 


Conlents 

LECTURE   VI 

Christian  Ethics  and  Other  Systems 

How  far  was  Christ's  teaching  original  and  peculiar  to  Him- 
scli  ?..........     239 

Ethics  of  Christianity  compared  with  the  teaching  of  Aristotle 
and  other  ancient  Moralists  .         .  .  .  .240 

With  Stoicism,  the  highest  of  non-Christian  systems  :  the  best 

of  its  teaching  has  been  absorbed  by  Christianity        .  .242 

The  historical  Religions  :  not  true  that  the  historical  Religions 
are  all  expressions  of  the  same  "  religious  experience  "  or 
that  they  teach  the  same  Ethics      .  .  -54 

Judaism  in  its  historical  form  not  universal istic  258 

Mohammedanism  ^59 

Zoroastrianism  or  Parseeism  :')i 

Hindooism  :'>3 

Buddhism  .....  264 

Attempts  to  reform  the  old  religions  more  or  less  in  accord- 
ance  with  Christian    ideas:    the   Brahmo  Somaj,  libemi 
Judaism,  etc.  ....... 

Such  attempts  should  be  treated  as  among  the  wa>'s  in  whici. 
the  Kingdoms  of  the  world  are  becoming  the  Kingdom  of 

our  God  and  of  His  Christ 

Reasons  for  not  being  satisfied  with  such  a  partial  Christian 
tiatioQ  of  the  world :  justification  of  Christian  Missions 
devotkm  to  a  personal  Christ  .... 

Connexion  between  Christ's  ethical  teaching  and  the  Church 
doctrine  of  His  Person  ...... 

APPENDIX   1 
Oh  the  Love  of  God 
Relation  between  love  of  God  and  love  of  Human  it 

APPENDIX    11 

Ou  Ch^i^i  >  A  LiuUtHg  abotU  Fuiun  Reward  and  l\o...ni,.^i.: 

Critical  examination  of  reported  sayings :  it  is  probable  tliat 
our  Lord  did  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  : 
certainly  not  taught  by  St.  Paul 290 


CONSCIENCE  &  CHRIST 

LECTURE  I 
MORAL  PHILOSOPHY  AND  MORAL  AUTHORITY 

IF  you  open  a  book  of  Moral  Philosophy  written  by  a 
philosopher  of  any  school  which  does  not  altogether 
explain  away  moral  distinctions,  you  find  it  invariably 
assumed  that  it  is  possible  to  find  out  what  is  right  and 
what  is  wrong  by  an  appeal  to  some  power,  faculty,  or 
activity  of  the  human  mind.  The  Philosophers  may 
differ  as  to  what  this  faculty  is,  as  to  the  method  of  its 
procedure,  as  to  the  precise  meaning  attached  to  the 
ideas  of  right  and  wrong  and  as  to  what  particular  acts 
are  right  or  wrong.  But  if  we  confine  ourselves  to 
the  greater  philosophical  writers  of  any  period,  or  to 
any  philosophical  writers  great  or  small  who  have 
written  in  modern  times,  you  will  invariably  find  this 
much  common  ground  between  them.  In  none  of 
them  will  you  find  yourself  referred  to  any  external 
authority — any  authoritative  book  or  books,  any  body 
of  decrees  or  canons  emanating  from  any  external 
authority  whether  of  the  past  or  of  the  present — as 
our  only  means  of  discovering  what  we  ought  to  do. 


2  Conscience  and  Christ 

Probably  you  will  not  find  such  authorities  even 
mentioned  at  all  as  a  source  of  guidance  on  ethical 
questions.  On  the  other  hand,  when  you  take  up  a 
book  of  orthodox  Theology  or  read  a  discussion  upon 
some  particular  practical  problem  in  a  Church  assembly 
or  a  religious  newspaper,  you  are  very  likely  to  find 
it  assumed  without  apology  or  qualification  that  the 
difference  between  right  and  wrong  is  to  be  decided 
wholly  or  mainly  by  the  exegesis  of  scriptural  texts, 
or  by  an  appeal  to  Canons  of  Councils  passed — it  may 
be  in  light,  or  it  may  be  in  very  dark,  ages  of  the 
Church's  history.  The  only  difference  of  opinion 
seems  to  be  as  to  what  are  the  authoritative  pronounce- 
ments to  be  considered,  and  as  to  their  relative 
authority.  In  the  older  discussions — the  discussions, 
for  instance,  on  the  deceased  wife's  sister  question  in 
English  Convocations  or  episcopal  utterances  of  forty 
years  ago — you  will  find  the  Old  Testament  appealed 
to  as  well  as  the  New.  In  modem  times  the  appeal  is 
usually  to  the  New  Testament,  or  possibly  (in  writers 
or  speakers  a  little  touched  by  modem  critical  views) 
exclusively  to  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  Himself ; 
while  the  amount  of  stress  laid  upon  past  decisions 
of  the  Church  will  dej)end  upon  the  theological 
school  or  party  of  the  controversialist.  This  proposi- 
tion could  be  illustrated  not  merely  by  discussions  on 
questions  connected  with  marriage,  about  which  for 
obvious  reasons  opinion  is  peculiarly  apt  to  be  affected 
by  ecclesiastical  differences,  but  by  controversies  over 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority        3 

the  broadest  questions  of  social  Ethics.  It  is  not  an 
unknown  experience  even  at  the  present  day  to  hear 
a  clergyman  at  a  clerical  meeting  actually  maintain 
that,  if  a  man  does  not  acknowledge  the  authority  of 
Christ,  a  Christian  would  have  no  common  basis  of 
discussion  with  him  as  to  such  questions  as  strikes, 
wages,  SociaKsm  and  the  like.  And  even  less  unphilo- 
sophical  Christians  sometimes  talk  as  though  it  were 
only  in  the  positive  teaching  of  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures or  the  Christian  Church  that  you  can  find 
satisfactory  principles  for  deaUng  with  social  diffi- 
culties. 

And,  still  more  curiously,  we  sometimes  find  both 
attitudes  illustrated  by  the  same  man  under  different 
circumstances.  The  Theologian  may  also  be  a  Philos- 
opher. A  clergyman  may  be  a  teacher  of  Philosophy, 
and  when  he  discourses  before  his  class  upon  Moral 
Philosophy  he  will  say  a  great  deal  about  the  authority 
and  vaKdity  of  Conscience.  Indeed,  the  more  orthodox 
he  is  as  a  Theologian,  the  more  certain  he  is  to  adopt 
the  philosophical  opinions  which  insist  most  strongly 
upon  the  authority  of  Conscience.  He  will  probably 
treat  Kant's  theory  of  the  Categorical  Imperative  with 
profound  respect,  if  he  does  not  adopt  all  his  opinions. 
He  is  still  more  Ukely  to  accept  Bishop  Butler's  view 
that  there  is  "  a  superior  principle  of  reflection  or 
conscience  in  every  man,  which  distinguishes  between 
the  internal  principles  of  his  heart,  as  well  as  his  external 
actions:   which  passes  judgement  upon  himself  and 


4  Conscience  and  Christ 

them ;  pronounces  determinately  some  actions  to  be  in 
themselves  just,  right,  good,  others  to  be  in  themselves 
evil,  wrong,  unjust :  which,  without  being  consulted, 
without  being  advised  with,  magisterially  exerts  itself 
and  condemns  him,  the  doer  of  them,  accordingly."^ 
You  may  be  quite  sure  that  you  vnh  never  hear  in  a 
philosophical  lecture — even  if  dehvered  by  a  Bishop  or 
a  lecturer  in  some  definitely  theological  institution — the 
faintest  suggestion  of  the  theory  that  the  only  way  of 
settling  what  is  right  and  wrong  is  to  discover  a  text 
which  bears  upon  the  subject.  The  most  conserva- 
tive Theologian,  when  addressing  a  meeting  of 
working  men  on  some  great  moral  question,  or  when 
writing  apologetically  upon  the  fundamental  truths  of 
Religion  against  Agnosticism  and  Naturalism,  will  be 
sure  to  adopt  the  same  tone.  But  let  the  same  man 
get  upon  his  legs  in  a  Church  assembly  or  take  up  his 
pen  to  write  an  article  in  a  Church  newspaper  upon  a 
moral  question,  and  immediately  the  whole  tone  is 
altered.  We  hear  nothing  more  about  Conscience  or 
the  Moral  Law  or  the  Categorical  Imperative,  but  only 
about  the  true  exegesis  of  some  text  in  the  Gospels,  or 
about  the  decrees  of  some  Spanish  Council  in  the 
eighth  century  or  the  like.  Sometimes  we  hear  such 
questions  discussed  by  cultivated  ecclesiastics  as  if 
the  solution  to  be  given  in  the  twentieth  century,  not 
only  by  an  individual  Christian  but  by  whole  societies, 
to  the  gravest  problems  of  social  policy  must  depend 

*  SennoQ  II. 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority        5 

upon  the  answer  which  critics  give  to  a  question  of 
various  readings. 

The  contrast  between  these  two  methods  may  be 
illustrated  by  an  incident  in  which  I  was  personally 
concerned.  I  was  requested  to  give  evidence  before 
the  Royal  Commission  which  has  recently  been  in- 
vestigating the  question  of  the  Divorce  Laws  in  Eng- 
land. I  ventured  to  suggest  that  the  question  was  one 
upon  which  the  moral  consciousness  had  something  to 
say.  Thereupon  I  was  severely  cross-examined  by 
eminent  ecclesiastical  authorities  as  though  I  were  a 
setter  forth  of  strange  gods — and  very  dangerous  and 
unorthodox  gods  too.  The  most  exalted  of  them 
had  enjoyed  the  advantage  of  a  philosophical 
education,  had  sat  at  the  feet  of  Edward  Caird, 
had  no  doubt  written  plenty  of  essays  upon 
Moral  Philosophy  in  his  student  days,  and  would 
be  quite  capable  of  dealing  with  such  problems  in  a 
way  befitting  a  philosopher  :  yet  he  pressed  me  to  say 
whether  I  did  not  think  it  was  a  very  dangerous  thing 
to  proclaim  that  such  a  question  was  one  to  be  settled 
by  the  moral  consciousness.  Another  Commissioner, 
an  acute  and  learned  High-church  lawyer,  talked  as 
if  it  really  were  the  first  time  he  had  ever  heard  of 
the  moral  consciousness,  and  as  if  the  admission  that 
the  human  mind  possessed  any  such  activity  would 
be  fraught  with  the  gravest  disaster  to  Church  and 
State. 

Now  it  is  pretty  obvious  that  this  division  of  the 


6  Conscience  and  Christ 

mind  into  water-tight  compartments  is  not  a  desirable 
attitude.  It  may  be  assumed  almost  off-hand  that 
there  must  be  something  to  be  said  for  both  points  of 
view.  Only  very  uninstructed  or  very  prejudiced 
rehgious  people  will  seriously  deny  the  existence  and 
authority  of  Conscience  :  while  the  most  liberal  and 
least  dogmatic  of  Theologians  are  precisely  those  who 
will  be  most  disposed  to  insist  that  the  following,  the 
imitation,  the  obeying  of  Christ  represents  an  essential 
element  in  the  Christian  ideal  of  Ufe.^  If  we  are  to 
recognize  both  the  authority  of  Conscience  and  the 
authority  of  Christ,  we  ought  surely  to  aim  at  clear 
view's  about  the  relations  between  the  two.  And  yet, 
it  would,  I  fear,  be  difficult  to  point  to  any  work  in 
which  the  problem  is  satisfactorily  dealt  wth  from  a 
point  of  view  which  is  at  once  modem  and  uncom- 
promisingly Christian. 

We  have  excellent  works  on  Moral  Philosophy  on 
the  one  hand,  and  on  Christian  Ethics  on  the  other, 
in  some  of  which  no  doubt  the  true  relation  between 
the  two  subjects  is  incidentally  assumed  or  suggested. 
But  I  do  not  think  that  the  exact  problem  wliich  I 
have  in  mind  has  often  been  formally  discussed  in  recent 
English  or  American  Theology.  The  subject  certainly 
deserves  more  serious  treatment  than  it  has  received. 
I  need  hardly  say  that  in  these  six  lectures  I  cannot 

^  At  least  this  would  have  been  their  attitude  a  few  years  ago  ; 
among  the  ultra-eschatological  Theologians  this  would  not  perhaps 
be  assumed.  The  attitude  of  such  Theologians  is  dealt  with  in  the 
next  Lecture. 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority        7 

hope  to  supply  this  desideratum  in  our  theological 
literature  in  any  but  the  most  inadequate  way.  In  the 
little  time  at  my  disposal,  I  shall  not  aim  at  any  great 
theoretical  completeness,  and  can  only  hope  to  direct 
your  attention  to  some  of  the  problems  which  most 
pressingly  demand  solution,  and  offer  a  few  sugges- 
tions as  to  the  way  in  which  they  ought  to  be  dealt 
with. 

The  question  with  which  we  are  concerned  is  at 
bottom  ''  What  is  the  proper  relation  between  philo- 
sophical and  theological  Ethics — between  the  subject 
usually  called  Moral  Philosophy  or  Ethics  and  the 
subject  known  among  Roman  Catholic  divines  as 
Moral  Theology,  among  Protestants  more  usually  as 
Christian  Ethics  ? ''  Now  it  is  clear  that  such  a  discus- 
sion must  logically  presuppose  not  merely  that  we  know 
something  about  philosophical  Ethics,  but  that  we 
have  adopted  some  particular  ethical  system  ;  for  the 
answer  to  our  problem  may,  it  is  clear,  be  profoundly 
affected  by  the  particular  views  we  adopt.  It  being 
impossible  in  so  brief  a  course  to  enter  upon  any  real 
discussion  of  these  fundamental  ethical  problems,  I 
can  only  tell  you  in  the  barest  and  baldest  way  the 
main  conclusions  w^hich  I  shall  presuppose. 

I  start  then  with  the  assumption  that  we  have  a 
power  of  distinguishing  between  right  and  wrong.  I 
assume  the  existence  and  the  validity  of  the  moral 
consciousness,  or  in  more  popular  language  the  exis- 
tence and  authority  of  Conscience.    This  moral  con- 


8  Conscience  and  Christ 

sciousness  cannot  be  any  kind  of  Moral  Sense  or 
emotion  or  amalgam  of  emotions.*  For  the  strongest 
of  our  moral  convictions  is  precisely  this — that  the 
Moral  Law  possesses  objective  validity :  that  acts 
are  right  or  wrong  in  themselves,  independently  of 
what  I  or  any  other  individual  may  chance  to  think  or 
feel  about  the  matter.  Our  ultimate  judgements  are 
therefore  to  be  compared  rather  with  the  axioms  of 
mathematics  or  the  physical  laws  of  nature  than  with 
mere  emotions.  They  express  propositions,  which,  if 
true  at  all,  are  true  for  all  minds  whatsoever.  A  mere 
feeling — an  emotional  approbation  of  one  kind  of  con- 
duct or  disapprobation  of  another— could  not  possibly 
claim  any  such  objectivity.  Mustard  is  not  objec- 
tively nice  or  objectively  nasty  :  it  is  simply  nice  to 
one  person  and  nasty  to  another.  If  our  prejudice 
against  murder  were  a  mere  emotional  dislike,  the  man 
who  did  not  as  a  matter  of  fact  see  any  harm  in  murder 
would  not  be  in  error,  any  more  than  the  colour-blind 
man  who  experiences  a  sensation  of  indiscriminate 
grey,  when  the  majority  of  us  see  green  or  red,  is  in 
error.  The  thing  really  is  grey  to  him,  red  or  green  to 
the  normal-sighted  person.  Upon  that  view  it  is 
senseless  to  discuss  which  view  of  murder  is  the  right 
one  :   murder  would  simply  be  wrong  for  you  and  me 

*  I  have  discussed  this  subject  fully  in  The  Theory  of  Good  and 
Evil.  Bk.  I,  chap,  iv  sq.,  and  more  recently  (in  reference  to  recent 
theories)  in  Is  Conscience  an  Emotion?  being  the  W^cst  Lectures 
for  191 3,  published  by  Lcland  Stanford  University  (in  England: 
Fisher  Unwin). 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority        9 

who  are  repelled  by  such  an  act,  right  for  a  man  like 
Benvenuto  Cellini  who  gloried  in  it.  And  this  is  just 
what  the  moral  consciousness  of  most  people  un- 
doubtedly refuses  to  admit.  Our  moral  judgements 
claim  to  be  objective — to  state  a  matter  of  objective 
fact,  something  which  is  true  not  for  this  or  that 
person,  but  for  all  minds  whatsoever.  If  this  claim  is 
to  be  admitted,  they  must  come  from  the  intellectual 
part  of  our  nature,  whether  we  call  it  Reason  or  Moral 
Reason  or  anything  else — not  from  a  Moral  Sense  or 
any  other  emotional  capacity.  Objectivity,  of  course, 
does  not  imply  infallibility.  People  may  make  mis- 
takes about  questions  of  right  and  wrong,  just  as  they 
may  make  mistakes  in  doing  a  sum  in  Mathematics,  or 
in  the  formulation  of  a  scientific  law,  or  in  determining 
the  guilt  of  a  prisoner  at  the  bar.  What  it  does  mean 
is  that  if  A  says  '*  I  ought  to  do  this  under  such  and 
such  circumstances,''  and  B  says,  *'  you  ought  not  to 
do  so,''  one  or  other  of  them  must  be  wrong.  The 
moral  faculty  has,  of  course,  developed  slowly — just 
like  any  other  intellectual  capacity.  Not  only  are  the 
moral  ideas  of  savages  different  from  ours  in  detail, 
but  it  may  even  be  doubted  whether  the  lowest 
savages  can  really  be  said  to  possess  at  all  the  notion 
of  an  absolute  or  objective  right  and  wrong  as  that 
notion  existed  in  the  mind  of  a  Socrates  or  a  Kant. 
As  applied  to  the  lowest  savage,  the  emotional  theory 
of  Ethics  developed  by  such  writers  as  Professor 
Westermarck  and  Mr.  MacDougall  is  not  perhaps  so 


10  Conscience  and  Christ 

very  far  wrong  :  the  merest  germ  of  the  notion  of  an 
objective  *'  duty  "  is  to  be  detected  in  such  minds. 
But  the  existence  and  vahdity  of  an  objective  Morality 
is  no  more  affected  by  its  gradual  development,  or  by 
the  fact  that  infants  and  very  low  savages  may  not 
possess  the  notion  at  all,  than  the  validity  of  mathe- 
matical axioms  is  affected  by  the  fact,  if  it  be  a  fact, 
that  some  savages  cannot  count  more  than  ten,  or 
that  mathematically  deficient  minds — sometimes  very 
brilliant  minds  in  other  ways — cannot  follow  the 
simplest  geometrical  reasoning. 

As  regards  the  nature  and  authority  of  the  Moral 
Consciousness  then,  I  agree  in  the  main  with  the 
rationalistic  School  of  moralists,  though  I  should  admit 
that  emotion  has  a  great  deal  more  to  do  with  our 
actual  moral  judgements  in  detail  than  moralists  of  the 
Kantian  type  have  commonly  recognized.  But  I  must 
not  dwell  further  upon  that  matter. 

When  wc  pass  from  the  question  of  right  and  wrong 
in  general  to  the  question  of  the  ethical  criterion — that 
is,  the  question  how  we  are  to  ascertain  what  particular 
actions  are  right  or  wrong — we  find  that  writers  who 
beUeve  our  ultimate  moral  judgements  to  be  self- 
evident  deliverances  of  Reason  have  often  supposed 
that  it  is  possible  to  determine  the  morality  of  par- 
ticular actions  \vithout  reference  to  their  consequences. 
If  I  want  to  know  whether  I  ought  to  tell  a  lie  or  not, 
1  must  (so  one  kind  of  Intuitionist  would  say)  wait 
till  the  moment  of  action,  and  then  I  shall  hear  a 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority       il 

commanding  voice  within  me  telling  me  not  to  tell 
this  particular  lie  or  (it  may  be — in  very  exceptional 
circumstances)  to  tell  it.  Or  (according  to  another 
School)  I  am  supposed  to  find  written  on  my  con- 
sciousness a  general  law  which  tells  me  that  it  is  always 
wrong  to  lie — even  (so  Kant  expUcitly  held)  when  an 
armed  highwayman  asks  me  the  whereabouts  of  my 
best  friend.  I  must  not  stay  to  develope  the  absurd 
consequences — as  they  seem  to  me — of  accepting 
either  of  these  systems.  It  is  impossible  logically  to 
distinguish  between  an  act  and  its  consequences.  The 
consequences,  so  far.  as  they  can  be  foreseen,  are  in- 
cluded in  the  act.  And  if  we  once  admit  that  con- 
sequences are  to  be  considered,  there  is  no  logical 
stopping  at  any  particular  point.  We  must  consider 
all  the  consequences,  so  far  as  we  can.  The  true,  ideal, 
final  solution  of  a  moral  problem  must  depend  upon 
the  effect  of  the  particular  act  upon  the  well-being 
of  the  whole  human  race,  though  for  obvious  reasons 
it  is  not  necessary  as  a  rule  to  trace  out  those  conse- 
quences so  far :  it  is  enough  to  know  that  its  more 
immediate  consequences  will  be  better  than  those  of 
any  alternative  course  which  presents  itself  to  us,  and 
that  we  have  no  reason  to  anticipate  any  remoter 
bad  consequences  which  would  outweigh  the  good. 
So  far  I  agree  with  the  creed  commonly  known  as 
Utilitarianism.  But  Utilitarianism,  as  it  is  ordinarily 
understood,  is  committed  to  the  further  position  that 
human  well-being  means  nothing  but  pleasure,  and 


12  Conscience  and  Christ 

pleasure  measured  quantitatively.  From  that  posi- 
tion I  entirely  dissent.  The  belief  in  duty  carries  with 
it  the  further  conviction  that  the  doing  of  one's  duty 
— the  good  will,  goodness,  virtue,  character — is  an  end- 
in-itself,  that  it  is  itself  a  good,  and  the  highest  of  all 
goods.  And  I  believe  many  other  elements  in  human 
life  to  be  intrinsically  valuable  besides  goodness  and 
pleasure — knowledge,  intellectual  activity,  aesthetic 
satisfaction ;  affections,  emotions,  and  desires  of 
many  sorts.  All  these  kinds  of  conscious  life  and 
activity  are  normally  accompanied  by  pleasure,  but 
their  value  is  not  always  proportionate  to  their  pleas- 
antness. And  when  we  do  think  of  them  in  the  light 
of  pleasures,  we  recognize  that  they  differ  in  kind  : 
their  value  is  not  (as  the  Hedonist  supposes)  dependent 
upon  their  mere  duration  and  intensity  taken  together. 
Human  Well-being  or  Good  includes  a  whole  hierarchy 
of  goods.  There  is  a  good  of  the  will  or  moral  good  :  a 
good  of  the  intellect :  a  good  of  feeling.  True  good — 
good  in  the  singular — includes  all  these  goods  in 
due  proportion.  Acts  are  right  so  far  as  they  tend  to 
bring  about  for  all  mankind  such  a  true  good — the 
largest  amount  of  it  that  is  possible  and  the  justest 
distribution  of  it  that  is  possible.  When  we  have  to 
choose  between  different  goods,  our  aim  should  be  to 
bring  about  the  greatest  attainable  good  on  the  whole. 
The  Utilitarian  is  right,  it  seems  to  me,  in  aiming  at 
the  maximum  of  human  Well-being  and  a  just  distribu- 
tion of  it :   he  is  wrong  in  identifying  that  Well-being 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority      13 

with  maximum  pleasure.  The  Intuitionist  of  the 
traditional  type  is  right  in  holding  that  the  ultimate 
moral  judgement  is  intuitive,  immediate,  or,  if  you  Uke, 
a  priori :  he  is  wrong  only  in  treating  isolated  im- 
promptu judgements  upon  particular  cases  of  conduct, 
or,  again,  hard  and  fast  exceptionless  rules  as  to 
whole  classes  of  acts,  as  final,  irreversible,  absolutely 
binding  deliverances  of  the  moral  consciousness.  The 
true  ultimate  moral  judgement  relates  not  to  acts  but 
to  ends  :  the  true  moral  judgement  is  a  judgement  of 
value.  It  is  expressed  in  the  form  ''  this  is  good," 
not  '*  this  is  right.*'  The  concept  of  good  no  doubt 
includes  that  of  right  or  duty.  If  something  is  good, 
that  means  that  it  is  always  right  to  try  to  bring  it 
into  existence,  except  so  far  as  it  stands  in  the  way  of 
some  greater  good.  On  the  other  hand,  the  judgement 
'*  this  act  is  right  "  always,  if  thought  out,  implies 
that  there  is  some  good  which  ought  to  be  realized, 
absolutely,  for  its  own  sake,  as  a  means  to  no  end  but 
itself.  What  the  good  is,  it  is  for  the  moral  conscious- 
ness to  pronounce.  The  good  is  an  ideal  which  the 
moral  consciousness  creates  or  recognizes.  Such  is  in 
barest  outline  the  ethical  system  which  I  have  ven- 
tured to  call  *'  Ideal  Utilitarianism.;' 

I  cannot  hope,  of  course,  in  the  time  at  my  disposal 
to  explain  and  justify  this  mode  of  ethical  thinking  to 
those  to  whom  it  is  unfamiliar,  or  who  have  definitely 
adopted  some  other  system.  I  have  thought  it  best  to 
indicate  in  this,  I  fear,  rather  dogmatic  manner  the 


14  Conscience  and  Christ 

point  of  view  from  which  I  myself  approach  the  sub- 
ject ;  for  I  shall  be  obliged  at  times  to  assume  a  par- 
ticular answer  to  certain  ethical  problems.  But  I 
trust  it  will  be  possible  for  many  to  accept  the  general 
view  which  I  hope  to  set  before  you  of  the  relation 
between  philosophical  or  (as  some  people  might  call  it) 
**  natural "  Ethics  and  the  special  Ethics  of  Christianity 
without  adopting  my  own  particular  answer  to  the 
problem  of  the  ethical  criterion.  In  most  of  what  I 
have  to  say  it  will  be  enough  to  assiune  merely  that 
you  agree  with  me  in  holding  that  we  have  a  natural 
power  of  determining  what  is  right  and  wrong,  and, 
that  we  ought  in  the  last  resort  to  guide  our  conduct  • 
by  the  ethical  judgements  which  we  derive  from  this  ^ 
moral  faculty  of  ours.  The  problem  which  on  such  an  f 
assumption  confronts  us  is  this :  If  we  have  this  I 
natural  power  of  judging  between  right  and  wrong, 
where  can  we  find  room  in  our  moral  life  for  any 
external  authority — for  any  authoritative  rules  of 
right  and  wrong  such  as  we  find  in  the  Bible,  in  the 
traditional  laws  or  decisions  of  the  Church,  and  especi- 
ally in  the  commands  and  ethical  sayings  of  our  Lord 
Himself — or  (to  put  the  problem  in  its  most  general 
form)  for  any  positive  body  of  ethical  doctrine  such  as 
every  historical  Religion  sets  before  its  adherents  ?  If 
Conscience  is  to  be  supreme,  it  might  seem  at  first  sight 
that  to  set  up  any  such  body  of  ethical  precepts  as 
final  and  infallible,  or  even  as  entitled  to  any  particular 
respect,  must  be  superfluous  or  else  pernicious.    If  we 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority      15 

already  know  what  is  right,  why  appeal  to  the  authority 
of  any  outside  moral  legislator  ?  Might  we  not  (it 
may  be  asked)  apply  to  the  enactments  of  such  an 
authority  the  dilemma  by  which  the  Khalif  Omar  is 
said  to  have  justified  the  conflagration  of  the  Alex- 
andrian Library  ?  ''If  these  books  contradict  the 
Koran,  they  are  pernicious ;  if  they  agree  with  it,  they 
are  superfluous."  If  the  precepts  of  authority  agree 
with  those  of  our  own  Consciences,  they  must  be  super- 
fluous :  if  they  contradict  them,  they  must  be  false. 

Now  at  this  point  I  must  remind  you  that  the  process 
of  deciding  what  ought  to  be  done  in  any  conjunction 
of  circumstances  is  not  really  so  easy  a  process  as  it 
might  at  first  sight  appear  from  the  simple  assertion 
that  human  Reason  gives  us  certain  self-evident 
judgements  on  the  subject,  (i)  In  the  first  place  these 
self-evident  judgements  relate,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the 
value  of  ends  :  what  are  the  means  to  the  end  judged 
to  be  good,  we  must  learn  from  experience.  A  great 
deal  of  knowledge  about  plain  matters  of  fact  is  re- 
quired to  enable  an  individual  mind — even  an  adult 
developed  mind  at  an  advanced  period  of  civilization 
— to  give  a  right  answer  as  to  what  ought  to  be  done 
in  any  particular  conjunction  of  circumstances.  Such 
a  judgement  demands  much  knowledge  about  the  conse- 
quences of  actions  which  can  only  be  ascertained  fully 
by  an  experience  much  wider  than  that  of  the  average 
individual.  And  then  (2),  even  in  pronouncing  upon 
the  value  of  an  end,  the  individual  is  always  limited 


t6  Conscience  and  Christ 

to  his  own  experience  or  to  some  experience  which  he 
can  understand  by  the  analogy  of  his  own.  If  the 
question  be  as  to  the  relative  importance  of  culture 
and  (say)  athletic  exercise,  an  individual  must  have 
some  experience  of  both  before  he  can  decide  :  he 
need  not  have  an  actual  knowledge  of  the  particular 
literature  or  music  whose  value  is  in  question,  or  else 
it  would  never  be  possible  to  decide  upon  the  value  of 
any  experience  till  it  was  over,  but  he  must  have  had 
some  analogous  experience.  He  need  not  wait  to 
justify  his  spending  time  upon  hearing  Wagner  or 
reading  the  last  new  poet  till  he  has  made  acquaint- 
ance with  their  works  :  but  he  cannot  decide  whether 
music  or  poetry  are  good  without  knowing  to  some 
extent  what  music  and  poetry  in  general  are  like. 
And  (3)  it  must  be  remembered  that,  even  when  the 
actual  experiences  are  before  him — when  he  knows  that 
act  A  will  lead  to  such  and  such  a  state  of  consciousness 
and  act  B  to  some  other  state  of  consciousness,  and 
knows  what  these  states  of  consciousness  really  are, — 
not  everyone  possesses  equal  powers  of  judging  values, 
any  more  than  all  individuals  are  equally  good 
judges  of  scientific  truth  or  of  historical  evidence  or 
are  equally  competent  critics  of  poetry  and  painting. 

From  these  considerations  it  follows  that  the  great 
majority  of  individuals  in  the  great  majority  of  their 
actions  cannot  possibly  decide  for  themselves  about 
their  rightness  or  wrongness  in  the  way  that  is  often 
assumed  to  be  possible  in  the  abstract  discussions  o 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority       17 

moral  philosophers.  That  would  be  so  even  if  each 
individual  were  bom  into  the  world  with  his  faculties 
already  fully  developed.  Still  less  are  children  capable 
of  giving  an  independent  answer  of  their  own  to  such 
problems.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  earUest  state  of  the 
human  infant  is  one  in  which  he  differs  from  a  low  type 
of  animal  only  in  having  less  strong  and  valuable 
guidance  from  his  instincts  and  a  greater  capacity  for 
future  development :  while,  if  we  look  to  the  history 
of  the  race,  the  civilized  modern  man  has  emerged 
from  a  savage  ancestor  in  whom  it  is  hard  to  detect 
any  such  rational  reflection  upon  conduct  as  the  moral 
philosopher  presupposes,  and  further  back  from  an 
animal  in  which  there  was  certainly  no  such  reflection. 
Even  when  we  turn  to  the  developed  intelligence  in 
its  most  reflective  moments,  we  at  once  recognize  that 
the  behaviour  of  most  men  in  most  circumstances  is 
determined  by  instinct,  by  passion,  by  custom  and 
habit,  or  (in  so  far  as  it  is  based  upon  consciously 
accepted  ethical  principle)  by  rules  which  are  not  due 
to  the  independent  working  of  their  own  intellect  but 
have  been  handed  down  by  social  tradition  and  are 
imposed  upon  them  by  a  social  environment.  It  is 
unnecessary  for  the  present  purpose  to  ask  what  deter- 
mines the  established  morality  of  a  community  in 
early  times — how  much  is  due  to  instinct,  how  much  to 
the  operation  of  natural  selection,  how  much  to  the 
teaching  of  experience  and  conscious  utilitarian  cal- 
culation, how  much  to  the  influence  of  leading  minds 


l8  Conscience  and  Christ 

and  the  traditions  which  they  have  created,  how  much 
to  emotion  and  how  much  to  Reason.  It  is  enough  for 
us  to  take  note  of  the  fact  that  in  primitive  communities 
moraUty  consists  mainly  in  obedience  to  custom  ;  and 
that  in  so  far  as  custom  is  due  to  the  working  of  the 
moral  Reason,  it  is  largely  the  Reason  of  the  community 
rather  than  the  deUberate  reflective  verdict  of  any 
particular  Conscience  that  expresses  itself  in  its 
morality.  As  civiUzation  and  moralization  advance. 
Morality  tends  to  become  more  conscious,  more  reflec- 
tive, and  more  individual.  But  even  in  the  most 
advanced  and  developed  communities,  the  greater  part 
of  the  average  individual's  moral  ideal  is  the  ideal  of 
his  community.  He  starts  with  a  set  of  rules,  ideals, 
institutions,  which  he  does  not  consciously  question,  and 
the  ultimate  grounds  of  which  he  does  not  investigate. 
The  part  which  his  own  Conscience  plays  in  the  matter 
is  for  the  most  part  that  of  accepting  and  recognizing 
the  moral  ideal  of  his  community,  or  in  choosing 
between  several  social  ideals  which  may  be  contending 
for  the  mastery  within  the  wider  community,  or  in 
applying  the  general  principles  which  are  so  accepted 
to  the  determination  of  particular  cases.  Only  occa- 
sionally does  the  individual  Conscience  assert  itself  to 
the  extent  of  criticizing,  rebelling  against,  defying  on 
some  particular  j)oint,  the  accepted  ethical  code. 

This  line  of  thought  has  been  carried  by  some 
Moralists  so  far  that  they  absolutely  refuse  to  con- 
template the  case  of  an  individual  sitting  down  to 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority      19 

consider  on  general  philosophical  principles  how  he 
ought  to  act  in  a  particular  case.  That  is  one  of  the 
characteristics  of  HegeUan  Ethics.  In  Hegel  himself, 
it  has  been  not  unjustly  said,  there  is  no  moral  Phil- 
osophy, but  only  political  Philosophy.  Full  as  he  is  of 
the  idea  that  Morality  is  an  expression  of  Reason,  it  is 
always  the  socjal  and  not  the  individual  Reason  that 
he  has  in  view.  The  individual  must  accept  the 
established  customs,  traditions,  and  institutions  of  his 
time  as  final  authorities.  *'  The  wisest  men  of  Antiquity 
have  given  judgement,*'  Hegel  tells  us,  *'that  wisdom 
and  virtue  consist  in  living  agreeably  to  the  ethos  of 
one's  people.''  And  Hegel  avowedly  accepts  this 
judgement  of  antiquity.  Mr.  Bradley  has  gone  one 
better  than  Hegel,  and  pronounced  that  for  a  man  ''  to 
wish  to  be  better  than  the  world  is  to  be  already  on 
the  threshold  of  ImmoraHty."^  Now  it  is  tolerably 
obvious  that,  if  this  system  is  to  be  carried  out 
thoroughly,  no  moral  progress  would  be  possible — unless 
we  choose  to  adopt  the  startling  position  that  all  past 
progress  in  the  ethical  standard  of  communities  has  been 
effected  by  a  succession  of  private  immoralities.  Moral 
progress  has,  in  point  of  fact,  only  been  brought  about 
by  the  acts  of  individual  men  and  women  who  have 
had  the  courage  to  condemn,  to  go  beyond,  and  to 
defy  the  existing  code  of  pubHc  opinion  at  a  given 
time  and  place.  It  is  true  that  the  development  of 
moral  ideals  is  effected  very  gradually  and  imper- 

^  Ethical  Studies,  p.  i8o. 


20  Conscience  and  Christ 

ceptibly.  Sometimes  you  may  not  be  able  to  point 
to  the  particular  person  or  persons  whose  thought  and 
action  have  brought  it  about.  Sometimes  the  same  idea 
or  tendency  seems  to  seize  upon  a  whole  community  at 
once  ;  more  often  it  takes  possession  of  some  consider- 
able minority  of  persons  almost  at  the  same  time, 
though  it  triumphs  only  at  the  cost  of  a  violent  struggle 
with  the  creed  of  the  majority.  Even  in  those  cases 
the  change  is  really  due  to  the  working  of  individual 
consciousnesses,  however  much  they  may  act  and 
react  upon  one  another,  and  however  impossible  it 
may  be  for  the  historian  to  determine  who  the  in- 
dividuals were.  But  that  is  not  alwaj^  the  case. 
Many  of  the  great  steps  and  stages  in  moral  progress 
are  definitely  associated  with  the  work  of  individual 
men — actual  historical  characters,  great  rulers,  great 
teachers,  great  thinkers,  reformers,  prophets,  men  of 
genius.  And  among  these — especially  at  a  certain 
middle  period  of  history  intervening  between  the  era 
of  primitive  custom  and  that  of  modem  civilization — 
the  most  prominent  individual  workers  in  this  great 
task  have  been  the  foimders  or  revolutionary  reformers 
of  the  great  historical  reUgions.  Whatever  else  an 
historical  religion  is,  it  always  Represents  a  certain  body 
of  teaching  about  right  and  \vrong,  a  body  of  ethical 
rules,  a  moral  ideal.  And  one  difference  between  the 
influence  which  is  exercised  by  such  great  religious 
teachers  and  other  personal  influences  which  have  con- 
tributed to  ethical  progress  is  just  this — that  it  is  much 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority       21 

more  conscious  and  personal.  These  men  have,  of  course, 
Hke  other  contributors  to  moral  progress,  influenced 
the  world  by  introducing  into  the  tone  and  traditional 
morality  of  the  community  changes  which  go  on 
operating  among  those  to  whom  even  their  names  are 
unknown  :  but  their  strongest  influence  is  dependent 
upon  the  actual  knowledge  of  their  words,  their  lives, 
their  characters.  And  this  influence  is  kept  alive  as  a 
definite  tradition  in  the  societies  which  they  have 
founded  or  refonned  or  influenced — whether  in  the 
form  of  sacred  books  or  of  traditional  rules,  customs, 
and  institutions.  To  overlook  or  underrate  the  in- 
fluence which  has  been  exercised  upon  moral  develop- 
ment by  great  personaUties  has  been  a  too  frequent 
tendency  of  philosophical  Ethics,  especially  in  the 
writers  of  the  Hegelian  School.  In  the  ethical  region 
— men  of  Science  are  beginning  to  say  in  the  biological 
region  also — nature  takes  more  leaps  and  longer  leaps 
than  a  priori  evolutionary  thinkers  like  to  admit.  And 
the  form  which  such  leaps  assume  in  the  moral  region 
is  most  commonly  to  be  found  in  the  appearance  of 
great  personalities. 

Now  to  a  considerable  extent  the  influence  of  the 
great  personality  consists  simply  in  making  people  | 
more  disposed  to  do  what  their  Consciences  already  { 
recognize  that  they  ought  to  do.  It  is  most  im- 
portant, of  course,  to  remember  that  men's  actual 
morality  depends  upon  many  things  besides  know- 
ledge— knowledge  of  what  they  ought  to  do.    And  we 


22  Consdefice  and  Christ 

might  attach  very  great  value  to  the  influence  of 
Christ  and  of  His  followers  and  of  the  Society  in  which 
the  memory  of  His  sayings  and  His  character  is  kept 
alive  even  if  we  never  appealed  to  His  authority  to 
decide  what  ought  to  be  done,  but  only  pointed 
men  to  Him  as  supplying  an  example  which  makes 
men  more  willing  to  do  what  their  own  Consciences 
enjoin.  To  a  very  considerable  extent  the  moralizing 
influence  which  Christ  has  exerted  has  been  of  this 
nature.  It  has  stimulated  and  deepened  the  moral  A 
consciousness  in  general.  But  a  recognition  of  this  facy 
does  not  solve  the  particular  problem  with  wliich  we 
are  immediately  concerned — that  is  to  say,  the  ques- 
tion what  and  what  kind  of  authority  we  ought  to 
attribute  to  His  teaching  on  particular  questions  of 
conduct.  We  must  go  on  to  ask  "  how  can  Christ — how 
can  any  great  teacher  or  great  personality — help  us 
to  know  what  we  ought  to  do  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
we  have  all  got  Consciences  to  tell  us  ?  " 

The  answer  may,  I  think,  be  gathered  from  the 
considerations  which  have  already  been  insisted  upon. 

(i)  In  the  first  place  men's  capacities  for  ethical 
judgement  vary  enormously ;  and  average  men  have 
to  rely  to  a  very  large  extent  upon  the  judgement  of 
the  gifted  few.  The  prophet  or  great  personality  may 
be  looked  upon  as  one  in  whom  Conscience  has  at- 
tained an  exceptional  development. 

(2)  The  moral  consciousness  can  only  give  ethical 
judgements  upon  the  basis  of  the  materials  presented 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority      23 

to  it.  An  ideal  must  be  thought  of  before  it  can  be 
approved,  and  to  think  of  a  new  ideal  of  life  requires 
genius  no  less  than  to  think  of  a  new  tune  or  a  new 
scientific  hypothesis.  The  ordinary  man  can  see  to 
some  extent — not  always  in  a  moment  but  in  course 
of  time — the  nobleness  of  a  new  ideal  which  has  actu- 
ally been  placed  before  him  ;  but  he  could  never  have 
thought  of  it  for  himself.  The  savage  into  whose  mind 
the  idea  of  unselfishness  has  so  little  entered  that  he 
finds  it  easier  to  believe  that  the  missionary  has  sprung 
from  the  foam  of  the  sea  than  to  believe  that  he  has 
not  come  among  them  to  serve  some  purpose  of  his 
own  is  nevertheless  found  quite  capable  of  appreciating 
the  beauty  and  the  nobleness  of  self-sacrifice  when  once 
he  has  been  brought  to  believe  in  its  existence.  It 
wants  some  poetic  capacity  to  appreciate  Shakespeare, 
but  not  nearly  so  much  as  it  took  to  be  Shakespeare. 
It  requires  some  moral  capacity  to  appreciate  the  ideal 
of  a  moral  genius,  but  not  nearly  so  much  as  it  takes  to 
conceive  that  ideal. 

And  (3)  even  when  the  truth  of  a  moral  rule  is  not 
actually  seen,  it  is  quite  justifiable  to  accept  the 
decisions  of  a  moral  authority  whom  we  judge  to  be 
more  Ukely  to  be  right  than  ourselves.  We  do  all  of 
us  begin  by  accepting  our  parents'  ideals,  and  then  the 
ideal  of  our  community.  If  we  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  a  particular  individual  or  some  group  of  men  or 
a  society  within  the  general  community  is  more  likely 
to  be  right  than  we  are,  it  is  a  quite  reasonable  and 


24  Conscience  and  Christ 

morally  justifiable  course  to  accept  and  act  upon  the 
decisions  of  this  authority,  just  as  we  accept  the  de- 
cisions of  experts  on  any  other  subject.  Two  reserva- 
tions must,  however,  be  made  in  laying  down  this 
principle,  (a)  The  first  is  that  even  this  acceptance  of  a 
moral  authority  implies  some  exercise  of  the  individual's 
own  moral  judgement :  for  it  implies  that  he  knows 
the  meaning  of  right  and  wrong  in  general,  even  if  he 
accepts  another's  verdict  upon  some  particular  ques- 
tion as  to  what  is  right  or  >\Tong.  This  notion  of  right 
and  wrong  in  general  no  external  authority  could 
possibly  teach  him  except  by  calling  into  activity  the 
latent  powers  of  his  ovm  soul.  And  (6).  while  on  details 
the  wisest  of  men  will  always  show  their  \nsdom  by 
trusting  the  judgement  of  those  who  are  likely  to  know 
best,  yet  when  we  come  to  the  fundamental  principles 
of  conduct,  to  act  in  obedience  to  authority  must  be 
regarded  as  a  lower  kind  of  Morality — one  only  to  be 
reconunended  as  a  step  towards  the  cultivation  of  an 
independent  ethical  judgement.  We  could  hardly 
imagine  a  man  beUeving  that  he  ought  not  needlessly 
to  injure  his  neighbour  on  authority.  The  man  who 
could  not  see  that  much  would  hardly  be  a  moral 
being  at  all.  It  is  not  so  inconceivable  that  one  who 
was  indisposed  to  treat  a  man  of  another  race  as  his 
neighbour  might  be  prepared  to  do  so  in  obedience  to 
an  authority  which  he  revered. 

On  these  principles  there  is  ample  room  for  the 
exercise  of  great  influence  over  the  moulding  of  moral 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority      25 

ideals  by  ethical  authorities  of  various  kinds — living 
teachers,  the  recorded  sayings  of  teachers  in  the  past, 
traditional  systems,  organized  societies.  And  if  we 
could  find  any  human  being  of  supreme  ethical  insight, 
we  should  have  on  these  principles  a  sufficient  reason 
for  placing  him  in  a  supreme  position  among  our 
ethical  authorities.  Indeed,  it  might  seem  that,  if 
only  we  could  be  sufficiently  sure  that  his  insight  was 
of  such  a  unique  character,  we  might  have  a  sufficient 
warrant  for  the  most  absolute  surrender  of  ourselves 
to  his  authority.  And  this  is  precisely  the  position 
which  much  traditional  Theology  would  assign — some- 
times to  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  sometimes  to  the  New 
Testament  only,  sometimes  to  the  Bible  and  the  |/' 
Church  (in  whatever  relation  they  may  be  supposed  to 
stand  to  each  other),  sometimes  to  Christ  alone.  I 
will  confine  myself  for  the  present  to  the  authority  of 
Jesus  Christ  Himself. 

And  here,  when  we  approach  the  central  question, 
**  What  kind  of  ethical  authority  are  we  prepared  to 
recognize  in  Jesus  ?  "  everything  turns  upon  the  grounds 
upon  which  we  suppose  that  He  is  supremely  likely  to 
be  right  in  his  ethical  judgements.  The  old  way  of 
defending  the  authority  of  Christ  was  something  of 
this  kind.  First  it  was  established  by  historical  evi- 
dence that  Jesus  said  certain  things,  and  that  He  worked 
certain  miracles.  The  miracles  were  held  to  prove 
that  what  He  said  must  be  true.  Then  it  was  either 
directly  inferred  that  all  His  ethical  teaching  must  be 


26  Conscience  and  Christ 

divinely  inspired,  and  therefore  fully  and  eternally 
true ;  or  else  the  same  conclusion  was  indirectly 
inferred  from  the  premiss  that  He  taught  the  doctrine 
of  His  own  Divinity.  Now  even  supposing  that  both  the 
miracles  and  the  sayings  could  be  sufficiently  attested 
by  historical  evidence,  and  supposing  it  were  certain 
that  the  events  conmionly  called  miracles  were  in  the 
fullest  sense  violations  of  the  laws  of  nature,  it  is  an 
immense  leap  from  the  fact  that  a  human  being  was 
able  at  some  point  to  suspend  the  laws  of  nature  to 
infer  that  all  that  he  said  was  true.  Moses,  according 
to  the  traditional  conception,  worked  miracles :  yet 
Christians  have  always  beUeved  that  certain  parts  of 
his  teaching  were  contradicted  and  set  aside  by  Christ, 
and  therefore  could  never  have  been  altogether  true. 
Elijah  is  said  in  the  Old  Testament  miraculously  to  have 
brought  down  fire  from  heaven  to  consimie  the  captains 
and  their  fifties ;  yet  this  very  miracle  was  treated  as 
an  indication  of  an  ethical  temper  deserving  of  severe 
oondenmation  by  One  whom  Christians  have  accepted 
as  a  higher  authority  than  Elijah.  If  we  make  the 
inference  indirectly — through  the  supposed  fact  that 
Jesus  claimed  to  be  God — the  inference  to  His  ethical 
infallibility  might  be  better  justified.  Even  then  we 
should  really  be  making  a  good  many  other  assump- 
tions, though  they  might  be  reasonable  assumptions. 
But  fortunately  we  are  dispensed  from  the  necessity 
of  answering  so  abstract  a  question.  A  critical  study 
of  the  Gospels  makes  it  certain  that  Jesus  never  did 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority      27 

claim  to  be  actually  God.  The  doctrine  of  Christ's 
Divinity  rests  rather  upon  the  sense  of  His  unique 
religious  value  entertained  by  His  followers  than  upon 
any  direct  claim  of  His  own.  It  is  due  to  the  reflective 
consciousness  of  the  Church  and  not  to  the  actual 
teaching  of  Jesus.  ^  That  He  claimed  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  or  the  Messiah,  to  speak  with  authority,  to 
have  a  divine  message  to  deliver,  is  true.  But  the 
other  prophets  had  claimed  to  have  a  divine  message 
and  that  with  obvious  bona  fides,  and  yet  we  do 
not  regard  all  their  words  as  final  and  infallible  revela- 
tions of  moral  truth.  If  it  is  admitted  that  revelation 
or  inspiration  admits  of  degrees,  a  mere  claim  to  be  an 
inspired  revealer,  or  even  to  be  the  promised  Messiah  of 
Jewish  expectation,  will  not  prove  ethical  infallibility. 
But  the  supreme  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  old 
Paleyan  conception  of  Christianity  as  a  body  of  super- 
naturally  guaranteed  truth  attested  by  historical 
evidence,  lies  in  the  doubtfulness  of  the  miracles  them- 
selves— the  doubt,  as  to  some  of  the  events,  whether 
they  actually  occurred,  and  as  to  others  whether  they 
cannot  be  accounted  for  without  supposing  any  actual 
violation  of  the  laws  of  nature,  however  much  they 
may  imply  unusual  and  abnormal  degrees  of  that 
control  of  physical  processes  by  mental  influence  which 
in  lower  degrees  is  a  matter  of  everyday  experience. 

*  This  of  course  implies  that  we  do  not  regard  the  fourth  Gospel 
as  a  record  of  the  ipsissima  verba  of  our  Lord — a  conclusion  which 
would  now  be  admitted  even  by  scholarly  defenders  of  its  Johannine 
authorship. 


28  Conscience  and  Christ 

Even  those  who  believe  in  the  Gospel  miracles  in  the 
most  uncompromising  manner  as  actual  violations  of 
physical  law  do  not  usually  at  the  present  day  rest 
their  proof  of  Christ's  Divinity  chiefly  upon  the  miracles. 
They  beheve  in  the  miracles  because  they  already 
believe  in  the  Divinity  rather  than  believe  in  the 
Divinity  because  they  beheve  in  the  miracles.  And  in 
their  proof  of  the  Divinity  they  rely  very  largely 
indeed  upon  the  impression  made  upon  the  Conscience 
by  our  Lord's  moral  teaching  and  character.  They  see 
a  supreme  revelation  of  God  in  His  character  and 
teaching  because  they  can  conceive  none  higher  or  more 
capable  of  satisfying  the  demands  of  their  own  moral 
consciousness.  And  therefore  it  would  be  absolutely 
suicidal  to  invite  us  to  accept  the  moral  teaching  merely 
on  the  strength  of  the  miracles,  or  on  the  strength  of 
any  claims  which  are  proved  by  the  miracles.  To  argue 
that  Jesus  was  divine  because  His  moral  teaching 
appeals  to  us  as  supremely  true,  and  then  to  contend 
that  His  teaching  must  be  true  because  He  was  divine, 
is  to  argue  in  a  circle.  If  we  once  allow  the  self-evi- 
dencing truth  of  His  moral  teaching  to  occupy  a 
prominent  place  in  the  argument  for  His  Divinity,  we 
are  trusting  to  the  validity  of  our  own  moral  conscious- 
ness ;  and  when  we  have  done  this,  we  can  no  longer 
profess  ourselves  wiUing  to  accept  any  and  every  moral 
precept  of  Christ,  without  any  criticism  of  its  contents, 
on  the  strength  of  the  historical  evidence  that  He 
uttered  the  words. 


} 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority      29 

And  this  consideration  sets  strict  limits  to  the  extent 
to  which  a  Christian  can  be  asked  to  accept  a  precept 
in  bUnd  obedience  to  Christ,  regarded  as  an  external 
moral  Legislator  or  an  external  Revealer  of  truth 
otherwise  inaccessible  to  the  human  mind.  We  canN 
accept  the  revelation  only  because,  and  in  so  far  as,  i 
it  appeals  to  the  moral  consciousness  as  true  :  it  is  f 
because  it  does  make  such  an  appeal  to  us  that  we* 
beUeve  it  to  be  a  revelation.  That  holds,  I  should 
contend,  of  other  than  the  ethical  aspects  of  the 
Christian  revelation,  but  with  those  other  sides  of 
Christ's  teaching  we  are  not  immediately  concerned. 
It  holds  still  more  clearly  with  regard  to  His  ethical 
teaching.  No  doubt  it  will  remain  possible  to  treat 
Christ's  deliverances  on  particular  points  with  pro- 
found reverence  :  it  may  even  be  quite  reasonable  for 
an  individual  to  accept  Christ's  verdict  on  particular 
questions,  and  to  act  upon  it  even  when  he  fails 
on  the  fullest  reflection  to  see  the  ground  of  that  ver- 
dict. That  is  the  principle  on  which  we  accept  the 
judgement  of  the  expert  on  any  subject.  We  defer  to 
him  beyond  the  limits  within  which  we  can  see  clearly 
because  we  have  tested  his  insight,  and  seen  it  to  be 
superior  to  our  own,  within  the  limits  within  which  we 
can  judge  for  ourselves.  But  there  must  be  a  point 
beyond  which  such  blind  submission  cannot  go  :  we 
submit  without  judging  in  a  detail  just  because  we 
have  judged  and  approved  the  ideal  as  a  whole.  If  the 
collisions  between  our  own  moral  judgement  and  his 


30  Conscience  and  Christ 

were  too  frequent  or  too  fundamental,  that  would  under- 
mine all  the  grounds  which  we  have  for  trusting  his 
judgement.  And  then,  when  we  do  accept  the  vaUdity 
of  authority  against  our  private  judgement,  it  will  not 
commonly  be  a  case  of  the  individual's  solitary  judge- 
ment being  pitted  against  that  of  the  authority  to 
which  he  defers.  The  judgement  of  the  solitary 
teacher — be  it  Christ  or  some  other  great  ethical 
teacher — will  commonly  be  supported  by  that  of  the 
community  generally,  or  some  large  section  of  it.  If 
it  were  not  merely  our  own  individual  judgement  but 
that  of  our  whole  community,  including  its  best  and 
wisest,  that  were  in  collision  with  the  judgement  of  the 
great  teacher,  then  we  could  hardly  contend  that  the 
ipse  dixit  of  any  authority,  however  justly  venerated, 
ought  to  prevail  against  the  voice  of  such  a  collective 
Conscience. 

The  conclusion  to  which  all  I  have  said  points  is 
that  the  kind  of  authority  which  we  can  attribute  to 
the  teaching  even  of  Christ  Himself,  and  the  limits  of 
that  authority,  must  be  determined  by  the  impression 
which  His  teaching  actually  makes  upon  the  moral 
consciousness  of  the  present.  And  therefore  we  cannot 
in  the  old-fashioned  way  first  examine  the  credentials 
of  the  Master's  authority  ;  and  then,  having  done  so 
and  found  them  satisfactory,  profess  ourselves  willing 
to  accept  and  act  upon  His  precepts  blindly,  no  matter 
what  the  actual  character  of  the  acts  conunanded. 
We  camiot  pronounce  on  the  authority  justly  to  be 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority      31 

claimed  by  the  teaching  of  Jesus  till  we  have  examined 
what  that  teaching  is,  and  asked  how  far  it  appeals  to 
our  moral  consciousness.  In  the  following  lectures  I 
shall  contend  that  the  authority  which  Christ's  ideal 
of  life  can  still  justly  claim  is  based  upon  the  fact  that 
it  does,  in  its  essential  principles,  appeal  to  and  satisfy 
the  demands  of  our  moral  consciousness  in  the  present. 
But  meanwhile  I  will  add  one  or  two  further  remarks 
on  this  general  question  of  submission  to  authority  in 
Ethics. 

(i)  Whatever  professions  may  have  sometimes  been 
made  to  the  contrary,  submission  to  authority  in 
matters  of  conduct  has  never  been  absolute.  There 
has  been,  of  course,  much — often  too  much — submis- 
sion to  authority  in  such  matters.  Without  a  certain 
amount  of  it  no  community  could  hold  together  for  a 
year ;  in  its  excess  such  submission  has  been  respon- 
sible for  some  of  the  greatest  crimes  in  history.  All 
the  great  religious  persecutions  have  been  justified  by 
the  precepts  of  the  Old  Testament  or  of  the  Koran. 
But  with  good  men  this  submission  has  always  had 
limits.  In  his  famous  controversy  with  Mr.  Gladstone 
Cardinal  Newman  frankly  admitted  that,  if  a  collision 
arose  between  a  Pope  who  should  command  him  to 
be  disloyal  to  his  Sovereign  and  the  Conscience  which 
bade  him  obey  that  Sovereign,  he  would  put  Con- 
science above  an  authority  which  he  theoretically 
regarded  as  infallible  in  all  matters  of  faith  and 
morals.     Enlightened  divines  still  frequently  talk  as 


32  Conscience  and  Christ 

though  they  would  be  prepared  to  obey  a  dictum  of 
Christ,  no  matter  what  they  themselves  thought  of 
its  morahty.  Some  of  them  are  even  willing  to  obey 
Him  (as  I  shall  point  out  hereafter)  on  the  strength  of 
a  conjectural  emendation  of  His  recorded  language — a 
deference  to  Criticism  which  they  do  not  always  display 
in  other  directions.  But  let  us  suppose  not  merely  that 
Criticism  had  detected  an  adventitious  gloss  in  a  par- 
ticular text,  but  that  a  first-century  MS.  of  the  second 
Gospel  were  discovered  from  which  it  appeared  that 
the  true  text  of  the  passage  about  Divorce  was  this  : 
"  thou  shalt  not  put  away  thy  wife  in  case  of  adultery 
but  thou  mayest  take  two  others,"  can  we  suppose 
that  any  one  of  those  Anglican  ecclesiastics  who  are 
so  irreconcilably  opposed  to  the  remarriage  of  the 
innocent  divorcee  on  the  strength  of  a  saying  of  Christ 
would  be  prepared  to  act  upon  the  recommendation  ? 
Of  course  they  would  not.  It  is  open  to  them  to  say 
that  what  they  believe  to  have  been  the  actual  com- 
mand of  Christ  appeals  to  their  conscience,  or  at  least 
is  not  opposed  to  its  dictates,  whereas  the  hypothetical 
injunction  would  not  make  that  appeal.  But  on  that 
view  it  is  really  because  they  approve  that  they  obey. 
Whether  they  approve  or  disapprove,  they  are  equally 
sitting  in  judgement.  These  divines  could  not  condemn 
others  for  rejecting  on  a  particular  point  a  dictum  of 
Christ  which  should  not  commend  itself  to  the  modern 
Conscience.  Whether  there  are  any  dicta  of  Christ 
Himself  which  fail  to  appeal  to  the  modem  Conscience, 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority      33 

I  shall  examine  in  future  lectures.  It  is  enough  to 
insist  that  no  one  really  makes  his  submission  even  to 
the  teaching  of  our  Lord  Himself  absolute  and  un- 
limited except  in  so  far  as  the  actual  injunctions  of 
that  authority  commend  themselves  to  his  conscience. 
As  a  rule,  of  course  (where  people  are  naturally  in- 
clined to  disagree  with  some  authoritative  command), 
an  open  collision  is  avoided  by  interpreting  the  com- 
mand of  their  authority  in  a  way  which  does  not 
contradict  the  deliverances  of  the  present-day  Con- 
science. Such  interpretations  always  have  been,  and 
always  will  be  discovered,  in  these  cases. 

(2)  And,  secondly,  it  is  important  to  insist  that  our 
Lord  Himself  does  not  claim  any  such  absolute  sub- 
mission to  Himself  as  to  a  merely  external  authority. 
He  always  addresses  Himself  to  Conscience.  He 
assumes  that  His  hearers,  too,  have  some  of  that  power 
of  judging  about  questions  of  right  and  wrong  which 
He  possessed  Himself  in  a  supreme  degree.  I  shall 
return  to  this  point  hereafter.  Meanwhile  it  will  be 
sufficient  to  remind  you  that,  even  when  He  appealed 
to  the  works  which  are  commonly  called  miraculous. 
He  appealed  not  so  much  to  the  power  exhibited  by 
the  works  (which  He  admitted  might  quite  conceivably 
come  from  Satan),  but  to  their  goodness.  It  was  the 
merciful  character  of  His  healings  which  showed  that 
they  came  from  God,  and  that  would  be  no  evidence 
at  all  if  we  had  no  power  of  judging  for  ourselves  that 
mercy  is  more  divine  than  malice.    His  language  about 


34  Conscience  and  Christ 

the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost — whatever  were  the 
exact  words  He  used  and  whatever  their  precise  meaning 
— implies  at  least  that  His  Pharisee  opponents  were 
struggling  against  their  own  conviction  that  His  teach- 
ing came  from  God — a  conviction  which  could  only  be 
based  on  the  witness  of  Conscience.  **  The  lamp  of 
the  body  is  the  eye  :  if  therefore  thine  eye  be  single, 
thy  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  light.  But  if  thine  eye 
be  evil,  thy  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  darkness.  If 
therefore  the  light  that  is  in  thee  be  darkness,  how 
great  is  the  darkness."*  There  we  have  an  explicit 
testimony  to  Jesus'  belief  in  a  light  which,  in  greater 
or  less  measure,  lighteth  every  man :  and  it  was 
that  light  to  which  He  appealed  as  the  supreme  sanction 
for  His  claims.  But  it  is  not  so  much  upon  any  detailed 
passage  that  I  would  rely  as  upon  the  spirit  of  His 
whole  teaching.  Habitually  He  assumes  that,  though 
men  did  require  to  have  the  truth  about  Morality  set 
before  them,  though  it  had  never  been  set  before  them 
so  fully  as  He  felt  Himself  able  to  reveal  it,  yet  when  it 
was  set  before  them,  they  were  capable  of  recognizing 
its  truth.  "  Why  even  of  yourselves  judge  ye  not 
what  is  right?  "*  The  words  occur  incidentally  in  a 
somewhat  obscure  passage,  but  they  only  recognize  a 
power  of  moral  judgement  which  is  implied  in  the  whole 
of  our  Lx)rd's  best-authenticated  teaching.  He  did  not 
ask  men  to  obey  his  precepts  except  in  so  far  as  their 

»  Matt.  vi.  22  (  =  Luke  xi.  34,  35). 
*  Luke  xii.  57. 


Moral  Philosophy  and  Moral  Authority      35 

Consciences  bore  independent  witness  to  their  truth. 
Doubtless  He  thought  of  that  inner  Hght  in  other  men 
as  coming  from  the  same  heavenly  Father  who  had  in 
an  exceptional  way  spoken  in  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures and  was  speaking  also  in  Him  :  but  it  was  a 
voice  within,  not  a  merely  external  voice,  to  which  He 
appealed  in  confirmation  of  the  claim  which  He  made 
upon  their  allegiance.^ 

1  This  side  of  our  Lord's  teaching  is  very  much  developed  in  the 
fourth  Gospel.  More  directly  than  any  of  the  Synoptists  the 
Evangelist  appeals  to  the  "  works "  in  attestation  of  Christ's 
claim,  but  after  all  the  appeal  to  the  works  comes  second  :  "Or 
else  believe  me  for  the  very  works'  sake  "  (xiv.  ii). 


LECTURE  II 
ETHICS  AND  ESCHATOLOGY 

IN  my  last  lecture  I  endeavoured  to  show  you 
that  it  is  impossible  to  determine  the  kind  of 
authority  which  may  reasonably  be  claimed  for  the 
ethical  teaching  of  our  Lord  in  advance — before  we 
have  examined  the  teaching  itself.  For,  in  His  own 
view,  that  teaching  was  assuredly  not  regarded  as  the 
promulgation  of  a  moral  code  by  an  external  authority, 
to  be  accepted  in  consequence  of  some  already  estab- 
lished claim  to  Messiahship^  or  Divinity — without 
examination,  without  interior  assent,  without  spon- 
taneous acceptance.  It  was  put  forth  as  an  appeal  to 
Conscience.  Still  more  certainly  the  authority  which 
it  possesses  for  us  at  the  present  day  must  depend 
upon  its  own  intrinsic  character.  In  the  view  alike 
of  His  own  immediate  disciples  and  of  the  reflecting 
Theologians  of  later  ages,  the  claim  of  the  Teacher  to 
be  something  more  than  one  among  many  inspired 
teachers  or  prophets  has  been  based — to  a  very  large 
extent  at  least — upon  the  appeal  which  the  teaching 

^  It  is  most  probable,  I  think,  that  this  claim  was  not  definitely 
made  till  towards  the  close  of  His  Ministry,  and  it  is  doubtful  how 
far  it  was  made  in  public  at  all. 

36 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  37 

and  the  character  have  actually  made  to  the  moral 
consciousness,  upon  the  response  which  they  have  awak- 
ened and  still  awaken  in  the  human  heart.  I  should 
like  to  have  gone  on  at  once  to  examine  what  the 
ethical  teaching  of  Jesus  actually  was  in  detail,  and 
then  to  invite  you  to  consider  what  authority  it  can 
justly  claim  for  the  modern  world.  Ten  years  ago  I 
should  probably  have  adopted  that  course.  But  in 
the  present  state  of  theological  thought  we  are  liable 
to  be  met  with  a  preliminary  objection  which  it  will, 
I  think,  be  well  to  deal  with  in  advance.  We  are 
liable  to  be  told  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  not 
primarily  ethical  at  all.  It  was  primarily  eschato- 
logical.  Its  main  content  was  simply  this :  the 
Messianic  Judgement,  long  foretold  by  prophet  and 
apocalyptic  writer,  was  at  last  on  the  very  point  of 
coming — a  sudden,  catastrophic,  in  the  fullest  sense 
supernatural,  appearance  of  the  Messiah  upon  the 
clouds  of  heaven — a  violent  and  abrupt  winding  up  of 
the  present  world-order,  followed  by  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Messianic  Kingdom  in  an  outward  and 
visible  form  whether  upon  a  very  much  altered  earth 
or  in  a  Heaven  beyond  the  skies.  Any  ethical  teaching 
which  the  Teacher  uttered  was  merely  incidental  to 
this  His  central  message :  and  that  teaching  is  almost 
destitute  of  any  special  value  or  significance  for  the 
modem  world  just  because  it  is  so  intimately  bound 
up  with  ideas  about  the  Universe  which  we  cannot 
share,  and  with  anticipations  as  to  the  future  which  the 


38  Conscience  and  Christ 

course  of  events  has  already  shown  to  be  delusive.  *  I 
should  very  much  have  preferred  to  pass  over  these 
questions  in  silence.  I  have  no  claim  to  speak  as  a 
specialist  upon  this  subject — a  subject  which  involves 
for  its  adequate  discussion  intimate  acquaintance  not 
only  with  the  difficult  and  complicated  Synoptic  prob- 
lem but  with  all  the  apocalyptic  Uterature  of  later 
Judaism  and  early  Christianity.  Nor  do  I  believe 
that  these  questions  have  in  reality  any  very  close 
connexion  with  our  proper  subject ;  but  I  fear  that  to 
brush  them  aside  and  proceed  to  examine  the  ethical 
teaching  of  the  Gospels  without  touching  upon  them 
would  expose  the  lecturer  to  the  suggestion  that  his 
whole  point  of  view  was  out  of  date,  and  that  every- 
thing he  had  said  must  in  consequence  be  consigned  to 
the  limbo  of  obsolete  apologetics.  I  must  therefore  at 
least  make  a  short  statement  as  to  the  attitude  of  my 
own  mind  towards  the  problem,  though  a  thorough 
discussion  of  it  will  be  impossible.  I  must  be  content 
with  giving  you  conclusions  with  no  more  than  the 
merest  outUne  of  the  reasons  which  lead  me  to  them. 
All  students  of  Theology — and  most  of  those  who, 

I  *  "  The  truth  is,  it  is  not  Jesus  as  historically  known,  but  Jesus 
as  spiritually  arisen  within  men.  who  is  significant  for  our  time  and 
can  help  it.  Not  the  historical  Jesus,  but  the  spirit  which  goes 
forth  from  Him,"  etc.  (Schweitser,  The  Quest  oj  the  Historical  Jesus, 
E.T..  p.  399).  There  is  a  sense  of  course  in  which  one  might 
accept  such  statements,  but  if  this  "  spirit "  really  "  goes  forth  from 
Him,"  i.e.  the  historical  Jesus,  there  must  be  something  in  common 
between  the  two,  and  this  something  must  be  capable  of  being  dis- 
tinguished from  its  escbatological  surroundings. 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  39 

without  being  professed  students  of  Theology,  take 
some  interest  in  the  course  of  theological  thought  and 
enquiry — are  aware  of  the  great  change  which  has 
taken  place  in  the  prevailing  attitude  towards  what 
are  called  the  eschatological  sayings  of  the  Gospels — 
that  is  to  say,  the  predictions  alleged  to  have  been 
uttered  by  our  Lord  about  His  own  future  coming 
again,  about  the  Judgement  which  that  coming  would 
inaugurate,  and  that  supernatural  winding  up  of  the 
existing  order  of  things  which  is  popularly  spoken  of 
as  the  end  of  the  world.  Conservative  Theology  has 
never  of  course  doubted  that  these  sayings  were 
actually  uttered :  and,  as  regards  the  central  event, 
it  has  been  disposed  to  understand  them  very  literally. 
The  Master  is  reported  to  have  said  that  He  would 
come  again  seated  on  the  clouds  of  heaven.  Con- 
servative and  orthodox  Theology  has  always  assumed 
that  that  prediction  would  be  literally  fulfilled.  All 
that  is  said  in  the  Gospels  as  to  the  second  coming  of 
Christ,  as  to  the  Judgement,  and  the  physical  catas- 
trophes which  should  precede,  accompany,  or  follow 
that  Judgement  have  been  understood  with  almost 
equal  literalness,  or  at  all  events  in  the  most  uncom- 
promisingly supernatural  sense.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
passages  which  seemed  to  speak  of  these  events  as 
impending  in  the  very  near  future — before  the  disciples 
had  gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel  or  in  the  Ufetime  of 
those  who  Ustened  to  Jesus — were  explained  either  by 
understanding  the  "  coming  '*  (so  far  as  those  particular 


4)0  Conscience  and  Christ 

passages  were  concerned)  in  some  spiritual  sense  or 
by  referring  them  to  that  approaching  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  which  was  regarded  as  a  sort  of  preliminary 
anticipation  or  first  instalment  of  the  final  Judgement. 
When  we  come  to  the  nature  of  the  Kingdom,  there  has 
been  much  diversity  of  opinion.  Some  passages  were 
understood  as  referring  to  the  establishment  of  the 
Kingdom  by  the  missionary  work  of  the  Apostles  on 
this  earth  ;  and  the  main  difference  of  opinion  among 
orthodox  thinkers  has  been  as  to  how  far  they  were  to 
be  understood  in  a  spiritual  sense  of  a  Kingdom  of 
Christ  in  the  hearts  of  the  individual  believer  or  in  the 
invisible  aggregate  of  beUevers,  or  how  far  the  King- 
dom might  be  identified  frankly  and  without  more 
ado  with  the  visible,  organized,  hierarchically  governed 
Church.  But  there  were  other  passages  in  which  the 
estabUshment  of  the  Kingdom  was  so  closely  con- 
nected with  a  judgement  of  a  supernatural  character 
that  the  Kingdom  had  there  to  be  understood  as  a 
new  order  of  things  to  be  established — after  the  judge- 
ment— whether  on  this  earth  or  (from  the  time  when 
"  Millenarianism  "  came  to  be  looked  upon  as  here- 
tical) more  usually  "  in  heaven." 

The  tendency  of  "  liberal  "  thought  until  recently 
has  been  towards  a  more  complete  spiritualization  of 
this  eschatological  teaching.  Theologians  like  Frederick 
Dcnison  Maurice  and  his  followers  were  inclined  to 
explain  in  a  spiritual  sense  the  whole  idea  of  the 
"  coming "    and    "  the    Kingdom.*'      The    Kingdom 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  41 

meant  for  them  a  gradual  remoulding  of  human 
society  in  accordance  with  the  ideas  of  Christ.  The 
coming  was  to  be  gradual,  though  it  might  include 
catastrophic  episodes — startling  historical  events  which 
constituted  peculiarly  signal  exhibitions  of  that  divine 
judgement  of  the  world  which  was  always  going  on  for 
those  who  had  spiritual  eyes  to  see  it.  In  particular 
passages  there  might  be  a  reference  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  as  one  of  the  first  and  most  significant 
of  the  epochs  or  stages  in  the  continuous  world- judge- 
ment ;  while  others  might  be  understood  as  a  dramatic 
embodiment  of  that  judgement  of  God  upon  individual 
souls  which  gradually  takes  place  as  each  one  dies  and 
stands  before  what  was  metaphorically  described  as  the 
judgement  seat  of  God.  Maurice  belonged  to  that 
school  of  pre-critical  Liberalism  which  was  peculiarly 
English.  Such  men  knew  little  of  the  critical  work  of 
their  German  contemporaries,  and  there  was  practically 
no  such  thing  as  higher  criticism  in  English  Univer- 
sities or  among  English  theological  writers.  English 
liberalizing  writers  were  content  for  the  most  part  to 
accept  the  recorded  words  of  Christ  as  substantially 
authentic,  and  to  limit  their  criticism  of  the  traditional 
Biblicism  to  the  substitution  of  a  moderate  and  a 
spiritual  for  a  mechanical  or  verbal  theory  of  Inspira- 
tion. More  advanced  Liberals  were  disposed  to  deny 
that  the  more  intractable  eschatological  sayings  were 
really  uttered  by  our  Lord,  and  to  put  down  the 
apocalyptic  imagery  and  colouring,  when  it  could  not 


42  Conscience  and  Christ 

with  any  plausibility  be  spiritualized,  to  the  influence 
upon  the  minds  of  the  Apostles  and  the  EvangeUsts  of 
narrow  Jewish  ideas,  the  existence  of  which  in  other 
minds  than  that  of  Jesus  they  had  no  desire  to 
conceal. 

During  the  last  few  years  there  has  been  a  much 
closer  study  of  the  Synoptic  problem  on  the  one  hand 
and  of  the  apocalyptic  literature  on  the  other— of 
Daniel  and  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  within  the 
Canon  and  of  that  group  of  extra-canonical  writings — 
some  of  them  only  recently  edited — of  which  the 
Book  of  Enoch  is  the  best-known  representative.  And 
the  result  is  that  Theologians  have  for  the  most  part 
become  convinced  that  the  apocalyptic  and  eschato- 
logical  element  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  cannot  be  so 
easily  disposed  of.  The  tendency  of  the  older  Liberal- 
ism was  to  spiritualize  as  much  as  possible,  and  either 
to  explain  away  or  to  reject  what  was  non-spiritual. 
Now  a  precisely  opposite  disposition  prevails.  The 
more  "  advanced,"  the  more  liberal,  the  more  emanci- 
pated a  Theologian  claims  to  be,  the  more  probable  is 
it  that  he  will  insist  on  regarding  as  authentic,  and  on 
explaining  in  the  most  literal  sense,  every  saying  of 
Christ  that  could  possibly  be  understood  as  having  an 
eschatological  significance.  It  is  just  the  prima  facie 
more  spiritual,  more  ethical  sayings  that  are  explained 
away  or  rejected  as  ecclesiastical  insertions.  By  the 
fashionable  school  of  German  Eschatologists  which  has 
culminated  in  Schweitzer,  and  by  the  Catholic  Modem- 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  43 

ists  of  the  Loisy  type,  the  older  Liberalism  is  now 
accused  of  having  made  of  Jesus  a  German  liberal 
Protestant.  The  historical  reality,  we  are  told,  was 
very  different.  In  the  view  of  Jesus  Himself — accord- 
ing to  Schweitzer  and  his  stricter  followers  ^ — His 
whole  message  was  primarily  Eschatology.  He  con- 
ceived of  Himself  not  as  Messiah  in  some  new,  spirit- 
ualized, transfigured  sense  but  in  the  literal  sense  of 
Jewish  Apocalyptic.  And  he  accepted  that  role  with 
all  its  consequences  and  all  its  concomitants.  He 
expected  a  catastrophic  judgement  in  the  near  future. 
He  faced — some  of  them  say  He  courted — death  in 
order  to  hurry  on  the  miraculous  interposition  which 
He  expected  to  follow  or  to  prevent  it.  His  hopes  were 
disappointed  :  His  cry  of  agony  on  the  Cross  was  the 
cry  of  one  who  had  expected  a  supernatural  deliver- 
ance, and  found  it  not.  He  really  felt  Himself  forsaken 
of  God,  All  His  teaching  about  the  Kingdom  refers 
to  the  expected  future  personal  reign  of  Himself,  the 
Messiah,  after  the  Judgement  at  which  He  was  Himself 
to  preside.  It  was  to  be  a  Kingdom  of  a  very  material, 
though  a  very  supernatural,  kind — to  be  set  up  sud- 
denly and  catastrophically.  He  had  no  thought  of  a 
gradual  permeation  of  Jewish  society  by  His  teaching 
— still  less  of  a  conversion  of  the  Gentile  world  to  His 
principles.     His  moral  and  religious  teaching,  what 

^  Loisy  is  less  extreme  in  his  Eschatology.  He  doubts  many 
sayings  which  Schweitzer  accepts,  and  he  has  more  respect  for  the 
ethical  teaching  of  Christ. 


44  Conscience  and  Christ 

there  was  of  it,  was  not  much  in  advance  of  the  higher 
rabbinic  teaching  of  His  time.  His  ethical  precepts 
consisted  merely  of  very  simple  instructions  for  the 
behaviour  of  His  followers  during  the  few  months 
which  He  expected  to  intervene  before  the  Judgement. 
It  was  a  mere  "  Interimsethik  " — as  the  phrase  is — 
of  little  value,  or  even  interest,  for  us  at  the  present  day 
who  know  His  Messianic  ideas  to  be  a  delusion  and 
anticipate  no  catastrophic  judgement  or  sudden  "end 
of  the  world."  ^ 

What  are  we  to  say  to  these  new  ideas  ? 

(i)  In  the  first  place  as  to  the  critical  basis.  I  have 
no  time  to  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  particular  pas- 
sages, but  I  must  confess  that  I  am  still  very  sceptical 
as  to  the  more  definite  sayings — the  sayings  which 
profess  to  indicate  the  exact  time  of  the  coming 
Judgement.  Not  one  of  them  belongs  to  what  is  per- 
haps the  best  attested  stratum  of  Synoptic  tradition. 
Not  one  certainly  belongs  to  the  source  now  known  as 
Q— that  is  to  say,  to  the  original  document  which 
underlies  the  sayings  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke. 
If  we  put  aside  the  apocalyptic  discoiu'se*  of  which  I 
shall  speak  in  a  moment,  not  one  of  them  which  occurs 

^  Of  course  I  do  not  deny  that  these  ideas  are  often  expressed 
with  considerable  qualifications  in  the  writings  of  the  ultra- 
•fchatologifli  (and  with  considerable  exaggeration  in  their  more 
private  utterances);  but.  in  proportion  as  such  writers  qualify 
their  statements,  they  do  not  differ  from  the  theologians  whom 
they  critidie.     Cf.  Schweitzer.  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus, 

p.  239.  pp.  399-401- 

'  Mark  xiii.  with  its  parallels. 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  45 

in  Mark  is  found  also  unaltered  in  the  other  two 
Gospels.  ^  And  they  are  not  consistent  with  one  another. 
In  one  passage  our  Lord  is  represented  as  saying  that 
His  disciples  would  not  have  gone  over  the  cities  of 
Israel  till  the  Son  of  Man  should  be  come  (this  is  found 
in  Matthew  only)  :^  at  another  He  says  that  only 
some  of  those  who  stood  by  should  witness  the  coming, 
implying  that  the  time  would  not  be  in  the  very  near 
future.^  In  the  long  series  of  predictions  contained 
in  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  St.  Mark  and  largely 
amplified  in  the  other  two  Synoptists,  He  speaks  of  a 
number  of  false  Christs  as  destined  to  come  first,  which 
means  of  course  that  He  was  to  disappear  in  some  way 
from  the  earth,  and  that  there  was  thus  to  be  a  con- 
siderable interval  before  the  coming  again,  although 
all  three  Synoptists  here  make  Him  say  that  this 
generation  should  not  pass  away  till  all  these  things 
came  to  pass.    And  all  these  passages  are  inconsistent 


^  Unless  the  prediction  that  He  would  drink  no  more  of  the  fruit  of 
the  vine  till  He  should  drink  it  new  in  His  Father's  Kingdom  (Mark 
xiv.  25=Matt.  xxvi.  29=Luke  xxii.  i8)  be  regarded  as  an  exception, 
and  be  understood  in  an  extremely  literal  sense.  There  is  again 
the  passage  :  "Ye  shall  not  see  me  henceforth  till  ye  shall  say, 
Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  (Matt,  xxiii. 
39  :  Luke  xiii.  35).  But  this  passage  seems  to  imply  a  disappear- 
ance and  a  reappearance  after  an  interval  of  some  duration,  rather 
than  any  immediate  manifestation  of  the  Kingdom. 

*  Matt.  X.  23.  The  extreme  improbability  that  J^sus  should 
have  spoken  thus  is  pointed  out  by  Loisy  (Evan.  Syn.  I,  p.  866). 
See  note  on  page  46. 

*  Mark  ix.  i  :  Matt.  xvi.  28 :  Luke  ix.  27.  Luke  has  simply 
**  see  the  Kingdom  of  God."  This  is  probably,  it  must  be  confessed, 
a  correction  of  Mark, 


46  Conscience  and  Christ 

with  the  express  declaration  that  He  Himself  did  not 
know  the  date  of  the  Judgement,  but  only  the  Father.^ 
This  last  is  one  of  the  five  *'  pillar-texts  "  which 
Schmiedel  treats  as  the  most  certain  of  all  the  sayings 
of  Jesus,  because  the  least  likely  to  be  invented  by  a 
disciple  or  by  the  unconscious  growth  of  tradition. 
All  the  others  may  quite  conceivably  be  attempts  made 
by  successive  generations  of  Christian  teachers  at  once 
to  adjourn  the  date  of  the  Gaming  and  to  reassure  the 
waning  hopes  of  Christ's  followers.'  The  thirteenth 
chapter  of  St.  Mark  is  obviously,  according  to  some 
even  of  the  more  eschatological  critics,  a  Jewish- 
Christian  Apocalypse  variously  ampUfied  and  touched 

*  Matt.  xadv.  36 :  Mark  xiii.  32.  Luke  no  doubt  omits  the  saying 
at  derogatory  to  the  omniicience  of  Jesiis.  It  may  be  suggested 
that  this  meant  merely  "He  did  not  know  the  ixact  date,"  but 
to  say  that  the  Judgement  should  come  before  a  tour  of  Palestine 
could  be  completed  was  surely  to  claim  a  very  exact  knowledge, 
hardly  less  so  to  say  it  would  come  within  some  forty  years. 

'  The  saying  most  difficult  to  account  for,  "  Ye  shall  not  have 
gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of  man  be  come,"  is  found 
only  in  Biatthew  (x.  23).  Sayings  found  in  Matthew  alone  are  the 
most  doubtful  of  all  the  words  put  into  our  Lord's  mouth,  especially 
when  they  can  be  explained  as  "  ecclesiastical  additions."  Schweitser 
treats  this  as  an  actual  saying  which  was  meant  literally.  Jesus 
was  disappointed  when  the  disciples  returned,  and  the  kingdom 
had  not  come.  But  the  context  should  be  remembered :  "  When 
they  persecute  you  in  this  city,  flee  ye  into  the  next,  for  verily  1 
tay  unto  you  ye  shall  not,"  etc.  The  disciples  were  in  little  danger 
of  persecution  at  this  time.  The  situation  presupposed  by  this 
verae,  as  by  much  else  in  Blatthew's  version  of  this  discourse,  is 
that  of  the  disciples  during  their  later  Palestinian  mission.  The 
Evangelist  evidently  means  the  whole  mission  of  the  Church  to 
be  understood  as  a  continuation  of  the  first  and  original  mission 
of  the  Twelve  during  the  earthly  life  of  their  Master.  The  date 
contemplated  is  therefore  much  the  same  as  that  implied  by  "  This 
generation  shall  not  pa«  away." 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  47 

up  in  the  different  S3nioptists  by  a  succession  of  hands. 
It  may  contain  genuine  sayings  of  Christ,  but  it  cannot 
be  treated  as  conclusive  evidence  as  to  the  way 
in  which  Christ  Himself  spoke  of  His  ''coming/' 
Even  the  earliest  version  in  Mark  assumes  that  a  not 
inconsiderable  time  will  elapse  between  the  departure 
of  Jesus  and  His  return.  If  we  accepted  it  as  genuine,  it 
would  positively  disprove  the  notion  that  Jesus  looked 
for  a  quite  immediate  Parousia.  The  succession  of 
false  Christs  could  not  be  expected  while  Jesus  was 
still  with  His  disciples  or  in  any  very  short  period  after 
His  departure.  With  regard  to  the  declaration  before 
the  High  Priest  it  may  plausibly  be  argued  that  critical 
probability  is  in  favour  of  the  Matthew-Mark  version, 
according  to  which  our  Lord  says :  *'  Henceforth  ye 
shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 
power  and  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,'*  though 
Luke's  account  has  simply  *'  from  now  shall  the  Son 
of  Man  be  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of 
God."^  But  what  are  the  probabilities  of  the  exact 
words  of  Jesus  at  the  Judgement-seat  being  accurately 
preserved  by  any  tradition  whatever  ?  It  seems  that 
none  of  His  disciples  was  present.  How  infinitely 
greater  were  the  probabilities  of  Luther's  words  before 
the  diet  of  Worms  being  correctly  remembered.  Luther 
spoke  in  an  orderly  assembly  of  hundreds  or  thousands, 
among  whom  many  were  attached  followers.  Some  of 
these  were  princes   or  great    personages,   occupying 

*  Mark  xiv.  62  (=Matt.  xxvi.  64) ;  Luke  xxii.  69. 


48  Conscience  and  Christ 

prominent  places,  and  all  were  hanging  upon  his  words. 
Yet  very  different  versions  of  his  words  were  in  circula- 
tion a  few  years  after  his  death,  and  the  famous  "  Here 
I  stand,  I  can  do  no  other,"  which  has  become  classical, 
is  now  shown  to  be  opposed  to  the  testimony  of  an 
eye-witness  who  wrote  very  shortly  after  the  event. ^ 

I  look  then  with  great  suspicion  upon  all  the  pas- 
sages which  profess  to  fix  the  date  of  the  Judgement, 
and  I  have  also  grave  doubts  as  to  the  share  which 
Jesus  personally  claims  for  Himself  in  the  judgement 
of  which  He  speaks.*  It  is  doubtful  whether  He 
ever  spoke  of  Himself  as  the  actual  Judge.  I  think 
I  could  give  you  critical  grounds  for  these  doubts  if  I 
had  time  to  go  through  the  passages  seriatim.    But 

*  See  Lindsay,  Hist,  of  the  lUformaHon.  I,  p.  291.  "  It  is  most 
likely."  says  Dr.  Lindsay.  "  that  in  the  excitement  men  carried 
away  only  a  general  imprestioii  and  not  an  exact  recollection 
of  the  last  words  of  Luther." 

*  That  Jesus  claimed  to  be  Himself  the  Judge  in  the  coming 
Judgement  can  be  aetabUsbed  only  by  three  parables  reported  in 
St.  Matthew— the  parables  of  the  Talents,  the  Sheep  and  the  Goats, 
the  Tares.  Only  the  first  is  in  Luke  also.  In  this  (Matt.  xxv.  19)  we 
are  told  that  it  is  only  "  after  a  long  time  "  that  the  Lord  will 
return  to  reckon  with  the  servants.  Either  therefore  we  must  give 
up  saying  that  Jesus  expected  a  Parousia  as  immediate  as  is  con- 
tended for  by  Schweitzer  and  his  uncompromising  followers,  or  the 
parable  cannot  be  treated  as  in  its  present  form  an  accurate  repre- 
sentation of  His  words.  The  Lukan  version — the  parable  of  the 
ten  pounds — is  said  to  have  been  uttered  "  because  he  was  nigh  to 
Jerusalem,  and  because  they  thought  that  the  Kingdom  of  God 
should  immediately  appear  "  (Luke  xix.  11) ;  and  even  apart  from 
this  comment,  the  intention  to  discourage  the  notion  of  an  im- 
mediate Parousia  is  sufficiently  evident.  It  is  therefore  quite 
potrible  that  in  the  original  pcu'able  the  function  of  the  Messiah 
was  less  distinctly  that  of  a  Judge.  The  parable  of  the  Sheep  and 
the  Goats  is  found  in  Matthew  only  (xxv.  31).  It  is  based  on 
Enoch  (cap.  Ixii).  where  (i).  though  the  Messiah  jadges,  it  is  not 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  49 

I  do  not  deny  that  there  is  a  residuum  of  truth  in  these 
eschatological  ideas.  Nothing  is  more  certain  than 
that  the  burden  of  Christ's  earUest  Gospel  was  that  '*  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand/'  And  by  the  coming  of 
the  Kingdom  we  cannot  suppose  Him  to  have  meant 
anything  so  vague  as  a  gradual  leavening  of  Society 
by  His  own  teaching.  In  the  Ught  of  the  current 
apocalyptic  conceptions  and  of  His  own  parables,  I 
think  we  must  admit  that  Jesus  did  expect  a  coming 
of  a  sudden,  catastrophic  kind  in  the  very  near 
future.  I  also  admit  the  probability  that  before  the 
end — it  is  not  probable  that  that  was  so  from  the  first 
— He  had  made  up  His  mind  that  He  was  Himself 
that  promised  Messiah ;    and  He  therefore  may  very 

until  "the  Lord  of  Spirits  seated  him  on  the  tlirone  of  His  (i.e. 
God's)  glory,"  (2)  the  "  elect  One  "  is  not  called  "  The  King."  The 
King  is  God.     Perhaps  this  was  so  in  the  original  parable. 

The  third  passage  in  which  the  Messiah  is  represented  as 
judging  the  world  Himself  is  in  the  parable  of  the  Tares  (or 
rather  in  the  explanation  of  it),  in  which  *'  the  Son  of  Man 
shall  send  forth  His  angels,"  etc.  (Matt.  xiii.  41).  This  is  found 
in  Matthew  only,  and  the  explanations  of  parables  are  less  trust- 
worthy than  the  parables  themselves.  If  the  saying  as  a  whole 
be  genuine,  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  the  role  which  is  here 
discharged  by  the  Messiah  was  in  Jesus'  words  attributed  to 
the  Father,  or,  as  in  verse  49  of  the  same  chapter,  to  the  angels 
("  the  angels  shall  come  forth,"  etc.).  And  after  all  this  Matthean 
parable  (like  the  last)  strongly  suggests  the  circumstances  of 
the  early  Church.  The  absence  of  passages  definitely  implying 
a  judgement  by  Jesus  Himself  in  Mark  and  (with  one  exception) 
in  Luke  is  very  significant.  The  words  about  coming  in  the  clouds 
of  heaven  at  the  trial,  if  genuine,  do  not  imply  Judgement  by  the 
Messiah :  it  is  more  probable  that  Jesus  should  have  spoken  of 
Himself  as  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  the  divine  Judge,  than  that 
He  should  claim  to  be  the  actual  Judge.  Luke  xiii.  25,  xxi.  36 
hardly  imply  more  than  Assessorship,  even  if  they  are  unaltered. 

E 


50  Conscience  and  Christ 

well  have  applied  to  Himself  some  of  the  current 
apocalyptic  imagery — how  much  we  caimot  be  sure. 
If  he  were  indeed  the  Messiah,  as  His  sense  of  close 
communion  with  God  and  His  consciousness  of  a  divine 
mission  suggested  to  Him,  it  would  follow  that  His 
heavenly  Father  would  in  some  signal  way  manifest 
His  Son  to  the  world,  visibly  interpose  in  His  favour, 
and  set  up  the  long-promised  Kingdom  in  some  visible 
and  conspicuous  form.  Jesus  probably  applied  to  the 
coming  of  the  Kin^rdom — whatever  He  may  have  said 
about  His  own  personal  role  in  it — the  accepted 
Messianic  symbols,  and  no  doubt  we  cannot  explain 
such  imagery  in  a  wholly  "  spiritual  "  sense,  if  by  that 
is  meant  the  entire  absence  of  anything  miraculous  or 
supernatural  in  the  manner  of  its  setting  up.  But 
not  all  the  sayings  can  with  probability  be  attributed 
to  our  Lord,  nor  need  we  take  all  this  imagery  (when 
it  is  well  attested)  with  the  deadly  literalness  which 
the  extreme  Eschatologists  demand.  In  view  of  the 
ethical  and  spiritual  tone  which  pervades  His  teaching 
as  a  whole,  it  is  unlikely  that  He  thought  of  the 
Messianic  banquet  as  a  banquet  at  which  literal  bread 
would  be  eaten  or  literal  wine  drunk — the  more  so  as 
this  was  denied  by  some  of  the  rabbis.^     We  know 

^  "  The  world  to  come  is  neither  eating  nor  drinking,  nor 
increasing  and  multiplying,  nor  giving  and  receiving,  nor  jealousy, 
nor  hatred,  nor  strife ;  but  the  righteous  sit  with  crowns  on  their 
heads,  and  enjoy  the  light  of  the  Shechinah  "  (b.  Ber.  17a,  quoted 
by  Herford,  Pharisaism,  p.  274).  Why  should  Jesus  have  been 
less  "spiritual"  than  the  Rabbis,  even  ii  it  be  assumed  that  He 
cannot  have  beeo  moie  9ot 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  51 

that  He  thought  there  would  be  no  marrying  or  giving 
in  marriage  in  that  Kingdom.  And,  if  He  did  apply  to 
Himself  the  traditional  picture  of  the  coming  with  the 
clouds  of  heaven  (which  is  by  no  means  certain),  we 
need  not  suppose  that  He  who  certainly  spiritualized 
so  much  of  the  old  prophetic  teaching  necessarily 
conceived  that  the  exact  mode  of  supernatural  mani- 
festation had  been  revealed  to  Him.^ 

But  (2)  it  is  simply  not  true  that  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  is  always  represented  as  something  to  be  set 
up  in  the  future  by  a  sudden  and  catastrophic  event. 
Side  by  side  with  the  passages  in  which  this  is  the  case, 
there  are,  as  has  been  well  pointed  out  by  Prof, 
von  Dobschiitz  in  his  admirable  little  book  on  The 
Eschatology  of  Jesus,  other  passages  in  which  the 
Kingdom  is  as  definitely  spoken  of  as  already  present, 
or  as  destined  to  spread  here  upon  earth  in  a  moral, 
spiritual,  gradual  way.  '*  If  I  by  the  finger  of  God, 
cast  out  devils,  then  is  the  Kingdom  of  God  come 
upon  you'' — is  already  come  (e^^acrei/).^  This 
passage  is  found  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  doubtless 

1  I  doubt  whether  our  Lord  promised  the  disciples  that  they 
should  sit  on  twelve  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel 
(Matt.  xix.  28^Luke  xxii.  30,  not  in  Mark).  How  could  He  who 
made  such  a  promise  have  declared  that  to  sit  on  His  right  hand 
and  on  His  left  was  not  His  to  give  ?  (Mark  x.  40=Matt.  xx.  23, 
omitted  by  Luke  as  derogatory  to  the  Apostles).  Whether  genuine 
or  not,  the  "thrones"  may  have  been  suggested  by  Testaments  of 
the  Twelve  Patriarchs  (Judah  xxv.  i). 

*  Luke  xi.  20.  An  attempt  is  made  on  the  analogy  of  modem 
Greek  to  make  this  mean  "is  just  coming."  Such  a  conjecture 
might  serve  once,  but  the  extreme  eschatological  position  involves 
explaining  away  so  much. 


58  Conscience  and  Christ 

forms  part  of  the  oldest  Gospel  source  which  used  to 

be  known  as  the  Logia,  and  which  it  is  now  customary 

to  speak  of  as  Q.    So  is  the  passage  :  "  from  that  time 

the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and 

every  man  entereth  violently  into  it."  *  Another  passage 

is  not  quite  so  well  attested,  being  found  in  Luke  only, 

but  there  is  no  reason  for  rejecting  it.    "The  Kingdom 

of  God  Cometh  not  with  observation :  neither  shall  they 

say,  Lo  here  or  Lo  there  !   for  behold  the  Kingdom  of 

God  is  within  you."*    And,  in  the  light  of  these  two  or 

three  pretty  clear  cases,  there  is  no  reason  why  we 

should  not  interpret   in   their   obvious   and  natural 

sense  those   passages   which  can  only  by  a  forced 

and   tortuous  exegesis  be  squeezed  into  conformity 

with  a  purely  futurist  and  catastrophic  conception — 

the  parables  of  the  grain  of  mustard-seed,*  of  the 

^  Luke  xvi.   16,     Ia  Matt.  xi.   12   the  words  are  somewhat 
difierent.  but  the  essential  part  is  the  same :    "  The  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  sufiereth  violence  and  men  of  violence  take  it  by  force. 
It  would  be  out  of  place  to  discuss  the  meaning  of  this  difficult 
pasnge. 

*  Luke  xvii.  20,  21.  {hrit  Cn^).  If  we  accept  the  translation 
"  among  you."  that  will  not  affect  the  argument.  (Luke  probably 
meant  "  within  " ;  the  meaning  of  the  original  Aramaic  is  more 
doabtfnl,  cf.  below,  p.  55  not$.)  Canon  Streeter  gives  good 
reasons  for  attributing  this  saying  to  Q  (Oxford  Studies  in  tk§ 
SynopHe  ProbUm,  p.  201).  It  may  have  been  omitted  simply 
because  it  was  not  understood.  Blatt.  xxi.  31  ("the  pubUcans 
and  the  harlots  go  into  the  Kingdom  of  God  before  you  "),  cited 
by  Prof,  von  DobschOtz,  may  be  got  rid  of  by  the  suggestion 
that  in  the  original  Aramaic  the  tense  used  was  the  imperfect, 
which  admits  of  being  translated  either  in  present  or  future. 

*  Matt.  xiii.  31 ;  Biark  iv.  31  ;  Luke  xiii.  19.  The  street  may 
(ee  is  contended  by  some)  be  on  the  contrast  between  the  smallmwe 
of  the  beginning  and  the  greatness  of  the  culmination,  but  still  the 
transition  from  the  one  to  the  other  is  by  a  process,  not  by  a  catas* 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  53 

leaven,  1  of  the  wheat  and  the  tares,  ^  of  the  seed  growing 
secretly.^  All  such  passages  may  be  much  more  natur- 
ally understood  of  the  rapid  spread  of  Christ's  teaching 
— not,  indeed,  in  the  Gentile  world  or  in  a  distant  future, 
but  now,  during  His  earthly  Hfe  among  His  own  people, 
before  His  very  eyes.  So  again,  while  our  Lord  some- 
times speaks  of  "  entering  "  the  Kingdom,  He  elsewhere 
speaks  of  receiving  the  Kingdom  of  God  "  as  a  little 
child  '** — which  lends  itself  naturally  to  the  present 
and  spiritual  interpretation.  He  who  receives  the 
good  news  of  the  Kingdom,  and  prepares  himself  for 
its  coming  in  the  right  spirit,  is  already  in  a  sense 
within  the  Kingdom,  or  the  Kingdom  may  be  said  to 
be  already  in  him.  ^  The  transition  from  the  one  aspect 
of  the  Kingdom  to  the  other  is  not  a  difficult  or  a 
violent  one.  Jesus  certainly  started  with  the  con- 
ception of  the  Kingdom  as  something  future.     But 

trophe.  It  is  suggested  that  the  idea  of  development  is  modern, 
but  after  all  the  ancients  were  quite  familiar  with  the  fact  that 
trees  grow  gradually. 

^  Matt.  xiii.  33  ;   Luke  xiii.  21. 

*  Matt.  xiii.  24.  This  parable  may  no  doubt  be  coloured  by  a 
reference  to  the  state  of  the  Church  in  the  Evangelist's  day. 

3  Mark  iv.  26. 

*  Mark  x.  15;  Luke  xviii.  17.  Matthew  (xviii.  3)  has  "Except 
ye  turn  and  become  as  little  children."  The  words  that  follow  ("  he 
shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  ")  show  that  the  full 
coming  of  the  Kingdom  is  future. 

^  So  the  scribe  who  answered  discreetly  was  not  far  from  the 
Kingdom.  If  the  Kingdom  was  nothing  but  a  future  event,  his 
distance  from  it  could  not  be  affected  by  his  moral  condition.  It 
is  implied  that  had  he  a  little  more  completely  lived  up  to  the 
spirit  of  his  answer,  he  would  be  already  within  the  Kingdom. 
But  as  this  occurs  only  in  Mark  xii.  34,  it  may  possibly  be  regarded 
as  an  addition  of  the  Evangelist's. 


54  Conscience  and  Christ 

when  He  saw  before  Him  the  spiritual  effects  of  His 
teaching,  He  may  well  have  been  impelled  to  exclaim 
"  The  Kingdom  is  already  come."  "  You  need  not 
wait  till  the  distant  future  for  it."  He  suggests:  "  when- 
ever the  teaching  about  the  Kingdom  bears  fruit  in 
human  society,  in  men's  hearts  and  in  their  lives, 
wherever  men  are  living  as  they  will  Uve  who  shall 
hereafter  live  in  the  Kingdom  that  is  to  be,  the  King- 
dom is  theirs  already  :  the  essentials  of  the  Kingdom 
are  already  present."  In  such  passages  we  get  what 
Prof,  von  Dobschiitz  has  called  a  "  transmuted 
Eschatology  "  > — the  old  eschatological  or  apocalyptic 

^  The  tiantition  iroiii  the  idea  of  the  Idagdom  as  ■ometluDg 
foture  to  the  kiiigdom  as  something  present  is  far  easier  than 
it  is  sometsmes  assamed  to  be,  and  there  are  precedents  for  such 
a  tfansitioa  in  Jewish  literature.  The  original  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic  terms  translated  kingdom  of  God  is  simply, 
we  are  tdd,  *'  Sovereignty  of  God,"  though  it  does  seem  to  imply 
also  the  social  sjrstem  in  which  that  sovereignty  is  exercised. 
"  The  sovereignty  of  God  belongs,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the 
corrent  age.  and  is  as  yet  fully  acknowledged  only  in  Israel.  The 
future  will,  however,  bring  a  fuller  development "  (Dalman,  Ths 
Words  of  Jesus,  I,  p.  98).  "  '  The  sovereignty  of  God  '  is  for  Jesus 
invariably  an  eschatological  entity,  of  which  the  present  can  be 
predicated  only  because  '  the  end '  is  already  approaching  "  (I.e. 
p.  135).  "  There  was  already  in  existence,  prior  to  the  time  of 
Jesus,  a  tendency  which  laid  little  stress  on  the  Jewish  national 
element  in  the  hope  for  the  future.  This  aspect  of  the  future 
hope  Jesus  thrust  still  further  into  the  background,  placing  the 
purely  religious  clement  decisively  in  the  foreground,  and  He 
thereby  extended  the  conception  of  the  '  sovereignty  of  God  '  so 
as  to  include  within  it  the  blessings  mediated  by  this  sovereignty. 
For  Him  the  sovereignty  of  God  meant  the  divine  power,  which, 
from  the  present  onwards  with  continuous  progress,  effectuates  the 
renovation  of  the  world,  but  also  the  renovated  world  into  whose 
domain  mankind  will  one  day  enter,  which  is  even  now  being  offered, 
and  therefore  can  be  appropriated  and  received  as  a  blessing  "  (Ic 
p.  137).    "  It  is  indubitable  that  He  developed  His  own  ideas  in 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  55 

language  applied  or  reinterpreted  in  a  present,  a 
moral  and  a  spiritual,  sense. 

And  the  very  possibility  of  this  transmutation 
implies  something  further.  It  implies  not  merely 
that  the  Kingdom  is  not  wholly  future,  but  that  even 
the  Kingdom  that  is  future  is  at  bottom — in  its 
inmost  essence — a  moral  and  spiritual  conception. 
The  Messianic  idea  and  its  spiritual  significance  lay 
so  near  to  each  other  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  that  He 
probably  passed  from  one  aspect  of  the  Kingdom  to 
the  other  quite  naturally  and  almost  unconsciously.^ 

(3)  And  this  brings  me  to  a  third  point  which  it  is 
important  to  insist  upon  as  against  those  extreme 
Eschatologists  who  can  see  in  our  Lord's  teaching 
nothing  but  a  piece  of  tawdry  apocalyptic  romance  of 
no  more  present  spiritual  significance  than  the  expecta- 
tion of  Nero*s  reappearance,  or  the  vision  in  the  book 

regard  to  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  conscious  opposition  to  the 
Zealot  movement "  (I.e.  p.  138).  From  this  point  of  view  there 
is  no  difficulty  whatever  in  supposing  that  He  might  have  said  "  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  among  you,'*  or  even  "  within  you.**  Dalman 
appears  to  have  no  doubt  that  He  said  one  or  the  other  :  he  inclines 
to  the  view  that  the  original  Aramaic  meant  **  within.*'  The  whole 
treatment  of  the  subject  by  Dalman  is  most  instructive. 

^  On  the  basis  of  Matt.  xiii.  52  we  might  argue  that  Jesus 
was  not  quite  unaware  that  in  His  mind  and  His  teaching  the  con- 
ception of  the  Kingdom  had  undergone  a  "  transmutation." 
"  Therefore  every  scribe  which  hath  been  made  a  disciple  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  man  that  is  a  householder,  which 
bringeth  forth  out  of  his  treasure  things  new  and  old."  If  the 
saying  be  genuine,  it  betrays  a  consciousness  that  the  old  Messianic 
language  was  being  invested  with  a  new  meaning.  But  the  passage, 
or  the  turn  given  to  it,  may  possibly  be  due  to  the  Evangelist, 
though  personally  I  see  no  reason  why  it  should  be  so.  Luke  may 
have  omitted  it  because  he  could  not  understand  it. 


56  Conscience  and  Christ 

of  Enoch  about  the  stars  which  became  bulls  and  the 
cows  which  gave  birth  to  elephants. 

The  conception  of  the  Kingdom  throughout — whether 
it  is  looked  upon  as  future  or  as  present,  as  to  come 
gradually  or  to  come  suddenly — is  at  bottom  ethical 
and  spiritual.  Doubtless  the  environment,  the 
accidents,  the  setting  of  the  jewel  are  apocalyptic. 
No  doubt  our  Lord  expected  that  the  Kingdom  was 
to  be  estabUshed  in  a  supernatural  manner,  just  as 
all  believers  in  InmiortaUty  think  of  that  inunortal 
life  as  involving  a  divine  action  which  goes  beyond 
anything  of  which  natural  law  as  at  present  known  to 
Science  can  tell  us.  True,  the  belief  in  Immortality 
does  not  necessarily  involve  a  breach  of  natural  law, 
and  the  eschatological  conception  does :  but  that 
difference  does  not  make  the  one  conception  spiritual 
and  the  other  not.  The  essence  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven,  as  Jesus  thought  of  it,  was  that  it  was  a  state 
of  closer  union  between  God  and  man,  a  state  of 
things  in  which  God's  will  was  to  be  perfectly  fulfilled. 

How  shall  I  estabUsh  this  position  in  a  way  that  will 
convince  those  who  do  not  see  that  it  is  impUed  in  all 
His  sayings  about  it  ?  The  best  proof  that  can  be 
offered  is  perhaps  the  purely  spiritual  character  of  the 
means  by  which  it  is  to  be  entered.  The  proclamation 
"  Repent "  is  as  undoubtedly  part  of  the  earliest 
message  of  Jesus  as  "  the  Kingdom  is  at  hand."  And 
all  through  His  teaching  it  is  insisted  that  nothing  can 
secure  admission  to  the  Kingdom  but  goodness.    Not 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  57 

descent  from  Abraham,  not  circumcision,  not  the 
observance  of  the  ceremonial  law,  not  the  sacrifices  or 
any  other  external  rite,  not  (as  was  sometimes  taught 
by  the  Jews  of  a  later  day^)  the  Day  of  Atonement 
and  its  ritual  could  procure  forgiveness  of  sins, 
deliverance  at  the  Judgement,  and  admission  to  the 
Kingdom.  About  these  not  one  word  is  said  in  any 
part  of  our  Lord's  teaching.  Admission  to  the  King- 
dom depends  upon  righteousness  and  upon  nothing 
else.  "  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me  Lord,  Lord, 
shall  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  heaven,  but  he  that 
doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  ^ 
It  is  the  righteous  and  they  alone  who  will  shine  forth 
as  the  Sun  in  the  Kingdom  of  their  Father.  All  the 
parables  of  the  Kingdom,  whatever  other  aspects  of 
it  they  emphasize,  imply  this — that  repentance  and 
righteousness,  moral  regeneration,  lives  devoted  to 
the  good  of  their  fellows,  were  the  sole  means  of 
entering  it.^ 

^  This  was  not  the  only  view.    See  Herford,  Pharisaism,  pp.  210- 

215. 

*  Matt.  vii.  2i=Luke  vi.  46-8.  "Except  your  righteousness 
shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall 
in  no  case  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  heaven  "  is  in  Matthew  only 
(Matt.  V.  20),  and  therefore  perhaps  not  in  Q. 

®  If  we  could  rely  on  it  implicitly,  we  might  especially  point  to 
the  parable  of  the  marriage-feast  (Matt.  xxii.  11  ;  cf.  Luke  xiv.  16). 
It  is  arbitrary  and  extravagant  to  interpret  the  wedding-garment 
by  "  election  "  (as  is  done  by  Schweitzer),  and  to  quote  it  in  proof 
of  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  a  "  predestinarian  "  ;  though  after  all 
to  be  a  predestinarian  is  not  necessarily  to  be  unethical.  But 
the  passage  about  the  wedding-garment  is  in  Matthew  only.  It  is 
curious  how  uncritical  an  "  Eschatologist  "  can  become  when  he 
finds  anything  to  suit  his  purpose. 


58  Conscience  and  Christ 

No  doubt  Jeeus  thought  of  the  Kingdom  as  some- 
thing more  than  an  ethical  condition  :  it  was  a  state 
of  reward  :  it  included,  it  may  be  assumed,  happiness 
and  freedom  from  the  cares  and  sufferings  of  human 
life  as  we  know  it :  and  to  be  excluded  from  the 
Kingdom  meant  punishment  and  suffering — of  what 
kind  it  is  unnecessary  now  to  ask.  If  this  is  to  be 
unethical,  almost  all  teachers  who  have  believed  in 
Immortality  have  been  imethical, — Plato  and  Kant 
and  nearly  all  the  most  spiritual  teachers  of  philo- 
sophical Ethics  no  less  than  all  the  prophets  of  all  the 
Religions.  Even  with  a  negative  Eschatology  such  as 
Gautama's,  freedom  from  pain  is  part  of  the  promised 
reward.*  In  the  teaching  of  Jesus  this  reward  is 
symboUzed  by  the  ordinary  apocalyptic  image  of  the 
Messianic  banquet.  The  rejected  gnash  their  teeth 
with  shame,  and  remain  in  the  darkness  outside  the 
brilliantly  lighted  banqueting  hall.  But  there  is  in 
His  teaching  singularly  little  insistence  upon  the  joys 
of  the  Kingdom — still  less  is  there  anything  about 
carnal  joys  except  what  is  implied  in  the  imagery  of 
the  banquet .  A  Kingdom  which  is  entered  by  righteous- 
ness and  nothing  else  must  surely  be  conceived  of  as 
a  Kingdom  of  righteousness:  that  much  is  after  all 
impUed  in  the  old  prophetic  conception  of  the  King- 

>  Jesus  never  taught  that  the  good  deed  was  to  be  done  only 
for  the  sake  of  the  reward.  The  Pharisees,  says  Mr.  Herford, 
"  were  emphatic  in  teaching  that  the  '  Mitzvah  '  [good  deed]  was 
not  to  be  done  for  the  sake  of  the  reward,  as  if  to  obtain  thereby 
some  payment  of  what  was  due  "  (Phari&aism,  p.  275). 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  59 

dom,  and  even  in  that  of  the  more  spiritual  Apocalyp- 
tists.  1  The  bare  fact  that  Jesus  taught  that  a  Messianic 
Kingdom  was  to  be  set  up  involves  no  disparagement 
of  Ethics.  Unless  to  promise  a  future  reward  for 
righteousness  is  to  be  unethical,  there  is  no  antagonism, 
as  seems  to  be  assumed  in  some  quarters,  between 
Ethics  and  Eschatology.  In  the  preaching  of  Jesus 
the  announcement  that  the  Kingdom  was  to  come 
and  the  ethical  appeal  went  together.  But  to  be 
eschatological  is  not  necessarily  to  be  unethical. 
Everything  depends  upon  the  question  where  the 
emphasis  is  laid.  According  to  the  ultra-eschatological 
School,  all  the  emphasis  was  upon  the  Eschatology. 
I  believe  the  exact  opposite  to  be  the  case.  In  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  all  the  emphasis  was  on  the  Ethics, 
and  upon  Religion  of  an  intensely  ethical  type. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  to  emphasize  Ethics  more 
than  to  urge  men  to  devote  their  whole  energies  to 
winning  an  entrance  into  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and 
then  to  tell  them  that  the  only  way  of  entering  it  is 
to  be  righteous.  And  there  is  hardly  anything  said 
about  the  Kingdom — if  we  put  aside  the  "  little  Apoca- 
lypse '* — except  in  close  connexion  with  exhortations  to 

*  This  is  well  put  by  Mr.  Montefiore  who  has  assuredly  no  bias 
in  favour  of  Christian  orthodoxy.  "  The  essential  feature  of  the 
ordinary  conception  of  the  Messiah  was  that  of  a  righteous  King 
ruling  over  a  righteous  people  ;  the  Messianic  era  was  indeed  one  of 
prosperity,  but  far  more  was  it  one  of  peace  and  goodness  and  the 
knowledge  of  God.  So  far  as  it  was  this,  why  should  not  Jesus  have 
wished  to  be  the  Jewish  Messiah  ?  "  {Syn.  Gospels,  p.  xcvii) .  Of  course 
Mr.  Montefiore  would  admit  that  out  of  the  various  and  conflicting 
Messianic  ideals,  Jesus  picked  the  most  spiritual. 


6o  Conscience  and  Christ 

righteousness.  By  the  simple  process  of  counting  verses, 
it  can  be  shown  that  the  teaching  is  mostly  religious  or 
ethical.  And  what  the  Gospels  do  not  contain  is  as  sig- 
nificant as  what  they  do  contain.  Compare  our  Lord's 
sayings  with  the  book  of  Daniel,  or  the  Apocalypse  of 
St.  John,  or  with  any  of  the  other  avowedly  eschatologi- 
cal  and  apocalyptic  writings.  These  are  not  entirely 
wanting  in  ethical  elements,  but  the  ethical  parts  are 
small  in  bulk  compared  with  those  which  deal  with 
the  details  of  the  awful  calamities  coming  on  the 
earth,  of  the  historical  or  physical  disasters  which 
would  precede  or  follow  it,  of  the  rewards  in  store  for 
those  who  should  be  saved  from  the  approaching 
judgement.  There  is  nothing  therefore  in  the  mere 
fact  that  our  Lord  believed  that  the  Kingdom  of  God 
would  be  set  up  in  the  near  future,  and  in  a  catas- 
trophic manner,  which  proves  that  Ethics  formed  an 
imimportant  or  subordinate  part  of  His  teaching  ;  or 
that  that  teaching  possesses  no  value  for  us.  If  this 
is  to  be  shown,  it  must  be  shown  from  the  actual 
character  of  His  teaching.  What  the  character  of 
that  teaching  was,  we  shall  examine  in  our  next 
lecture. 

But,  it  may  be  asked  by  some,  "  Does  not  the  mere 
fact  that  Jesus  expected  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom 
and  a  general  winding  up  of  the  present  physical  and 
social  order  witliin  a  few  months  or  a  few  years  by 
itself  imply  that  His  teaching  cannot  be  suitable  to 
the  moral  needs  of  our  times — that  it  must  be  merely 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  6% 

an  '  Interimsethik  *  —  a  mere  temporary  makeshift, 
a  provisional  code  for  a  strictly  transitional  state  of 
things  ?  ''  I  submit  that  this  is  not  to  be  assumed  a 
priori.  Why  should  we  spend  our  time  otherwise 
because  we  are  going  to  die,  or  to  pass  into  some  new, 
stage  of  existence,  in  six  months  than  we  should  do  if 
we  were  to  know  we  had  twenty  years  of  life  before 
us  ?  "  To  Uve  this  day  as  if  my  last  *' — has  not  this 
been  at  all  times  a  familiar  prayer  among  religious 
people  and  a  commonplace  of  religious  exhortation  ? 
No  doubt,  when  we  come  to  details,  the  probable 
duration  of  life  does  become  important.  A  wise  man 
who  knows  that  he  has  only  a  year  or  so  to  live  does 
not  set  himself  down  to  write  a  Lexicon  or  a  Universal 
History.  Objects  of  pursuit  that  are  really  vain  and 
unimportant  may  seem  doubly  so  in  prospect  of  an 
early  death :  but  not  the  things  that  are  best  worth 
doing.  And  the*  same  principle  will  apply  to  the 
duration  of  Society  as  to  the  duration  of  the  individual 
life.  Here  the  difference  in  detail  might  be  greater. 
A  good  man  who  knew  he  was  to  die  in  six  months' 
time  would  go  on  ploughing  his  field  because  he  knows 
that,  even  if  he  will  not  be  able  to  reap  the  harvest 
and  eat  the  bread,  others  will  do  so.  He  might  well 
devote  himself  to  the  founding  of  enterprises  which 
others  will  carry  on.  But,  if  he  thought  the  world 
was  coming  to  an  end,  or  that  human  Society  as 
at  present  constituted  was  to  be  wound  up,  in  five 
years'  time,  he  would  not  begin  to  build  a  Cathedral 


62  Conscience  and  Christ 

or  to  found  a  new  University.  Still,  these  are  matters 
of  detail,  not  of  principle.  In  point  of  fact  the  moral 
teaching  of  Jesus  contains  very  little  detail.  It  deals 
almost  entirely  with  general  principles.  The  im- 
perative need  for  repentance,  the  supreme  importance 
of  pure  motive,  the  swallowing  up  of  all  the  command- 
ments in  the  command  to  love  God  and  our  neighbour 
— these  are  its  main  ideas.  There  is  no  reason  why 
commands  like  these  should  not  be  equally  valuable 
for  a  society  which  believes  itself  destined  to  endure 
till  the  sun  waxes  cold,  and  for  a  society  which  believes 
that  some  world-transforming  catastrophe  is  close  at 
hand.  There  is  no  a  priori  reason  for  treating  the 
Ethics  of  Jesus  as  useless  to  a  modem  society,  because 
He  entertained  certain  eschatological  expectations. 
Once  more,  if  we  want  to  discover  whether  it  is  an 
"  Interimsethik "  or  not,  we  must  examine  the 
teaching  itself,  and  say  how  it  appeals  to  us. 

And  here  let  me  remark  that  in  answering  this 
question  we  are  no  longer  obliged  to  adopt  a  meek 
and  deferential  attitude  towards  the  experts  in 
Synoptic  criticism  or  in  Apocalyptic  literature.  When 
it  is  a  question  of  spiritual  values,  such  persons  have 
no  particular  claim  to  be  heard.  To  say  what  is  the 
present  value  of  our  Lord's  teaching  is  the  business 
of  the  Philosopher  or  of  the  Moralist ;  and  even  they 
of  course  have  after  all  no  data  to  go  upon  but  the 
deliverances  of  their  own  moral  consciousness.  Here 
it  is  ethical  or  spiritual  insight  which  counts  rather  than 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  63 

critical  learning  or  acumen,  though  a  certain  amount 
of  philosophical  training  and  acquaintance  with  the 
general  history  of  thought  may  be  considered  not 
altogether  irrelevant.  And  I  will  venture  the  further 
remark  that  in  this  matter  the  extremer  eschato- 
logical  critics  have  shown  no  superiority  to  the 
old-fashioned  Liberal  Protestant  Theologians  whom 
they  affect  to  despise. 

I  proceed  then  to  ask  how  far  the  eschatological 
expectations  of  Jesus — whether  those  which  I  admit 
He  entertained  or  those  more  detailed  expectations 
which  He  may  have  entertained  if  we  suppose  all  the 
eschatological  utterances  attributed  to  Him  to  be 
genuine — ^have  actually  coloured  His  ethical  teaching, 
and  diminished  the  value  of  it  for  ourselves.  There 
is,  I  believe,  only  one  way  in  which  the  character  of 
our  Lord's  ethical  teaching  may  have  been  affected  by 
His  belief  in  the  coming  end.  In  the  face  of  the  ap- 
proaching Judgement  all  other  occupations,  interests, 
aims  in  life  seemed  comparatively  unimportant  beside 
that  of  announcing  that  the  Judgement  was  at  hand 
and  calling  upon  men  to  prepare  themselves  for  it.  And 
therefore  He  did  sometimes  emphasize  the  unim- 
portance of  worldly  goods,  and  encourage  His  dis- 
ciples to  take  no  thought  for  the  morrow  to  an  extent 
which  would  require  some  correction  before  it  could 
be  literally  applied  to  the  case  of  t^ose  who  do  not 
believe  that  the  world  is  just  coming  to  an  end.  The 
essential  principle  even  of  such  sayings  does,  however, 


64  Conscience  and  Christ 

remain  eteraally  true.  "  Seek  ye  first  the  King- 
dom of  God  and  His  righteousness."  The  Kingdom 
of  God  first,  all  else  afterwards.  If  we  refuse  to  accept 
that  principle,  it  will  be  because  we  do  not  care 
for  righteousness  as  much  as  Christ,  not  because  our 
eschatological  ideas  are  different  from  His.  Here, 
as  elsewhere,  we  must  distinguish  between  eternal 
principles  and  particiJar  applications.  It  is  true  that 
to  some  men  He  did  address  the  invitation,  as  the 
supreme  thing  to  be  done  for  the  moment,  to  leave 
their  ordinary  occupations  and  join  His  missionary 
band.  He  did  not,  it  would  appear,  impose  that 
task  upon  all  His  hearers :  the  call  which  He  addressed 
to  the  Twelve  and  to  some  others  was  a  call  (as  M.  Paul 
Sabatier  has  remarked)  not  to  a  new  religion,  but  to  a 
new  apostolate.  The  call  was  addressed  to  those 
whom  He  judged  fit  for  it.  And,  as  we  look  back  upon 
the  w^ork  of  Jesus  and  His  Apostles  in  the  light  of 
history,  was  He  after  all  so  very  much  mistaken  as  to 
the  supreme  importance  of  this  task  ?  He  was  en- 
gaged, according  to  the  Eschatologists,  in  trying  to 
save  a  small  section  of  one  Jewish  generation  from  a 
terrible  calamity  which  awaited  the  imrepentant  in  a 
few  months  or  a  few  years'  time,  after  which  the 
effects  of  His  preaching  would  end.  In  the  light  of 
history  we  see  that  He  was  really  sowing  the  seeds 
of  a  vast  spiritual  revolution,  founding  a  new  religion 
instead  of  regenerating  an  old  one — a  religion  which 
was  to  convert  the  whole  Roman  Empire  within  some 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  65 

few  centuries,  which  has  now  after  nearly  two  thousand 
years  spread  to  the  remotest  corners  of  the  world,  and 
has  so  far  proved  itself  to  be  the  only  one  of  the  ancient 
historical  religions  which  can  hold  its  own  in  the  light 
of  modem  Science  and  modem  Culture.  Surely  the 
task  of  preaching  what  Jesus  called  the  Kingdom  of 
God  really  was  the  most  important  task  to  which  any 
human  being  could  then  and  there  have  addressed 
himself.  Doubtless  the  task  was  conceived  by  Himself 
and  His  followers  under  the  limitations  of  Jewish 
thought :  but  that  did  not  affect  its  essential  import- 
ance. If  Jesus  was  not  the  Messiah  as  Jewish  thought 
conceived  Him,  it  was  only  because  He  was  so  much 
more  :  if  the  ideal  of  a  Messianic  Kingdom,  as  He  and 
His  disciples  expected  it,  was  not  to  be  realized,  the 
Kingdom  that  they  really  did  set  up  was  something 
much  greater  than  they  contemplated.  Like  all  the 
world's  greatest  spiritual  builders,  they  builded  much 
better  than  they  knew.  Jesus  was  not  wrong  then  in  the 
advice  which  He  gave  to  the  best  men  of  His  own 
generation.  With  all  our  fuller  knowledge  and  larger 
experience,  we  could  not  wish  that  He  should  have 
taught,  or  that  they  should  have  acted,  differently. 

But  what  of  the  application  of  that  call  to  ourselves  ? 
No  doubt  in  order  to  apply  it  to  the  conditions  of 
modem  life,  we  must  to  some  extent  translate  the 
conception  of  the  Kingdom  into  terms  of  modern  life. 
For  us  the  light  of  Science  and  the  course  of  History 
have  dispelled  the  dream  of  a  speedy  return  of  Jesus 


66  Conscience  and  Christ 

upon  the  clouds  of  Heaven.  But  how  far  need  that 
modify  our  conception  of  the  Kingdom  ?  It  is  neces- 
sary that  we  should  face  this  question,  because  so 
much  of  Christ's  ethical  teaching  was  conveyed  under 
the  form  of  parables  about  the  Kingdom.  If  we  can- 
not make  the  Kingdom  mean  something  modem,  there 
is  a  large  part  of  Jesus'  teaching  which  vdl\  mean 
nothing  at  all  for  us.  I  have  endeavoured  to  show  you 
that,  though  the  original  conception  was  that  of  a 
future,  catastrophic  Kingdom,  Jesus  did  also  in  all 
probability  speak  of  a  Kingdom  which  should  come 
gradually,  which  was  actually  coming  gradually  in 
a  quiet,  \mobtrusive,  imcatastrophic  development,  as 
individual  souls  listened  to  His  message,  and  as  a  little 
society  formed  around  Him  in  which  God's  will  was 
being  already  done.  If  this  meaning  of  the  King- 
dom was  for  Him,  in  a  sense,  a  secondary  meaning,  it 
is  clear  that  to  us  it  must  be  the  primary  one.  The 
Kingdom  of  God,  after  all,  means  only  the  reign  of 
God.  To  bring  about  a  reign  of  God  in  human  society 
is  surely  the  true  conception  of  the  supreme  end  of 
hmnan  life.  And  then  there  is  a  sense  in  which  the 
futurist  interpretation  of  the  Kingdom  wHl  always  be 
the  right  one.  Of  course,  if  we  think  that  the  idea  of 
a  future  Ufe  better  than  the  present  was  a  baseless 
or  even  a  demoralizing  dream,  then,  indeed,  we  should 
have  arrived  at  an  ethical  ideal  which  would  be 
fundamentally  irreconcilable  with  the  deepest  ideas 
of  Jesus.    But  if  we  share  the  hope  of  Immortality, 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  67 

then  it  makes  little  difference,  from  an  ethical  and 
religious  point  of  view,  whether  the  entrance  upon 
this  future  life  was  to  be  effected  by  a  sudden  catas- 
trophe or  by  the  departure  of  individual  souls  from 
the  present  scene  and  their  reawakening  in  some  other 
state. 

And  there  is  no  real  incompatibiUty  between  these 
two  aspects  of  the  Kingdom  of  God — the  present 
ethical  aspect  of  it,  and  the  future  or  *'  transcendental " 
aspect.  The  late  Father  Tyrrell  in  one  of  his  last 
books,  Christianity  at  the  Cross-roads^  adopted  a 
curious  attitude  towards  this  eschatological  question 
which  has  attained  a  certain  popularity  in  England. 
He  agrees  with  the  extreme  Eschatologists  that  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  was  Eschatology  and  very  Httle  else, 
and  that  the  eschatological  hopes  which  He  cherished 
are  a  delusion.  But,  instead  of  drawing  the  inference 
*'  Christianity  cannot  be  the  Religion  of  the  Modern 
World,''  he  infers  on  the  contrary  that  the  Christianity 
of  the  modern  world  must  be  equally  eschatological. 
For  him  the  Christian  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  has 
absolutely  nothing  in  common  with  that  hope  of  a 
gradual  improvement  in  the  social  and  spiritual  con- 
dition of  Humanity  in  which  Protestant  Liberal 
Theology  has  been  disposed  to  find  its  deepest  meaning. 
Tyrrell  pours  ridicule  upon  the  modern  idea  of  indefi- 
nite progress,  moral  advance,  social  improvement.  His 
view  of  the  present  condition  of  the  world  is  pro- 
foundly pessimistic,  and  he  treats  the  hope  of  any 


68  Conscience  and  Christ 

serious  improvement  in  it  as  absolutely  baseless.  The 
only  hope  for  the  future  that  there  is  must  be  concen- 
trated upon  another  world  than  this.  The  essence 
of  Christianity  must  alwajrs  lie  in  the  dream  of  a  new 
heaven  and  a  new  earth.  By  the  vulgar,  it  seems  to  be 
suggested,  that  expectation  will  always  be  accepted 
in  some  rather  literal  and  materialistic  sense  :  more 
cultivated  Christians  will  treat  it  as  a  symbol  of  a 
somewhat  vague  hope  for  a  better  world  beyond  the 
grave  which  will  supply  a  sort  of  spiritual  anodyne  for 
the  irremediable  badness  of  life,  even  if  it  is  actually 
doomed  to  eventual  disappointment.* 

I  venture  to  think  that  this  attempt  to  combine  a 
pessimistic  contempt  for  the  present  life  with 
optimistic  hopes  for  the  future  is  profoundly  illogical 
and  self-contradictory.  For  upon  what  in  the  last  resort 
are  our  hopes  of  Immortality  founded  ?  For  those  at 
least  who  are  not  prepared  to  base  them  entirely  upon 
the  historical  evidence  for  a  bodily  Resurrection  of 
Christ,  it  must  rest  chiefly  upon  our  conception  of  the 
character  of  God.  It  is  no  doubt  just  because  the 
present  life  does  not  seem  good  enough  to  be  the  sole 
end  of  creation  for  a  just  and  a  loving  God  that  we 
feel  constrained  to  regard  it  as  the  educational  prepara- 
tion for — or  the  introductory  stage  of — something 
better.    To  deny  altogether  the  existence  of  real  evil 

*  A  much  more  sober  and  intelligible  account  of  Father  Tyrreirt 
position  is  given  in  the  last  of  his  Essays  on  Faith  and  Immortality. 
There  is  much  in  this  volume  with  which  I  feel  great  sympathy. 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  69 

in  this  life  does  no  doubt  destroy  all  logical  basis 
for  the  belief  in  Immortality,  unless  indeed  the  position 
be  taken  that  the  sole  real  evil  in  this  present  Ufe  is  its 
brevity  and  its  sudden  termination.  And  as  a  matter 
of  fact  most  of  those  philosophers  who  do  take  an 
optimistic  view  of  the  present,  or  explain  away  the 
existence  of  real  evil  under  cover  of  a  belief  in  a  super- 
moral  Absolute,  are  avowed  disbelievers  in  anything 
like  a  personal  Immortality.  We  may  admit  the 
radical  incompatibility  between  such  Optimism  as 
this  and  the  religion  founded  by  Jesus.  Christianity 
treats  the  evil  in  the  world  as  real  evil.  But  because 
we  admit  the  existence  of  some  evil  in  the  world,  that 
is  no  reason  why  we  should  believe  that  the  evil  is 
dominant,  and  always  destined  to  remain  so.  If  we 
get  rid  of  the  popular  notion  of  Omnipotence  as  a 
power  to  do  anything  or  any  combination  of  things 
which  we  take  it  into  our  heads  to  imagine,  we  must 
regard  God  as  really  contending  against  a  real  evil,  and 
ourselves  as  called  upon  to  become  in  the  most  literal 
sense  fellow-workers  with  Him.  But  this  is  scarcely 
a  possible  position  for  those  who  hold  that  all  their 
efforts  are  by  some  divine  decree  or  some  impersonal 
fate  doomed  to  utter  disappointment  so  far  as  the 
present  life  is  concerned,  though  there  is  a  bare  off- 
chance  of  some  better  life  beyond  the  grave.  The  very 
same  considerations  which  make  us  hopeful  for  the  future 
of  the  individual  soul  hereafter  should  forbid  our  alto- 
gether despairing  of  the  present  life.    A  Theology  which 


yo  Conscience  and  Christ 

bids  men  love  and  serve  one  another  because  God  works 
with  them  cannot  despair  of  a  brighter  future — though 
not  necessarily  an  actual  extinction  of  evil  and  of 
struggle — for  Humanity  on  earth.  And  therefore  for 
us,  as  for  Jesus,  there  is  no  essential  incompatibility 
between  that  sense  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  in 
which  it  means  the  hope  of  a  better  world  beyond  for 
the  individuals  who  pass  away  from  this  Ufe  and  that 
sense  of  it  in  which  it  means  a  better  social  state  to 
be  gradually  set  up  on  this  earth  by  the  progressive 
penetration  of  hiunan  society  with  the  principles 
which  Jesus  taught.  The  Kingdom  of  God  must  be 
for  us  an  ideal  to  be  realized  in  part  here,  more  com- 
pletely hereafter.  The  fact  that  we  no  longer  anticipate 
the  sudden  winding  up  of  the  imperfect  Kingdom  and 
the  sudden  appearance  of  a  perfect  one  by  a  catas- 
trophic world-judgement  is,  ethically  speaking,  an 
imimportant  detail.  We  can  accept  Jesus'  funda- 
mental idea  that  the  supreme  object  of  human  life 
should  be  the  promotion  of  the  Kingdom  in  the  sense 
of  an  ideal  social  state.  That  conception  already 
implicitly  involves  the  notion  which,  we  shall  see,  is 
developed  in  the  actual  teaching  of  Jesus — that  the 
duty  of  mutual  love  is  the  best  summary  of  human 
duty.  The  conception  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  may 
be  regarded  as  expressing  fundamentally  the  same 
idea  as  Kant's  notion  of  the  Categorical  Imperative, 
with  this  additional  advantage — that  it  expresses  not 
merely  the  bare  '*  form  "  of  the  Moral  Law,  but  also, 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  71 

when  it  is  read  in  the  light  of  the  rest  of  Christ's 
teaching,  the  most  essential  element  in  its  true  con- 
tent. ^ 

Of  course  it  is  a  priori  conceivable  that,  though  there 
is  no  necessary  incompatibility  between  eschatological 
hopes  and  an  Ethic  of  eternal  significance,  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  might  have  been  so  far  affected  in  detail 
by  these  eschatological  notions  as  to  render  it  incapable 
of  becoming  the  concrete  expression  of  the  moral  ideal 
for  a  modern  civilized  community  or  rather  for  a 
universal,  world-wide,  "  absolute  ''  Religion.  I  shall 
endeavour  in  future  lectures  to  establish  the  two 
following  propositions  :  (i)  that  even  in  detail  this 
was  not  to  any  considerable  degree  the  case — that 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  not  affected  by  His  eschato- 
logical expectations  even  to  the  same  extent  for  instance 
as  that  of  St.  Paul,  whose  advice  about  marriage  really 
was  dominated  and  seriously  distorted  by  this  expecta- 
tion ;  (2)  that  this  was  so  just  because  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  was  so  much  confined  to  fundamental,  eternal, 
truly  ethical  principles  that  in  point  of  fact  there  can 
hardly  be  said  to  be  any  detailed  injunctions.  The 
details  are  mere  illustrations — often  paradoxical  illus- 
trations— which  have,  indeed,  a  certain  colouring 
which  is  local  and  temporary,  but  this  colouring  can 

^  No  doubt  Kant's  conception  of  Kingdom  of  Ends  does  to  some 
extent  supply  the  desired  content,  and  the  conception  is  of  course 
only  a  philosophical  interpretation  of  Christ's  "  Kingdom  of  God  " 
with  the  disadvantage  that  it  leaves  out  the  religious  aspect  of  the 
Kingdom, 


yt  Conscience  and  Christ 

easily  be  distinguished  from  the  principle  which  they 
illustrate.  Once  again,  everything  depends  upon 
what  conclusions  we  arrive  at  as  to  the  actual,  con- 
crete character  of  the  teaching.  All  I  have  aimed  at  in 
this  lecture  is  to  show  you  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
eschatological  teaching  of  Jesus — even  if  we  accept 
the  views  of  the  extremer  Eschatologists  as  to  the 
merely  critical  and  historical  questions — which  would 
necessarily  affect  the  value  of  His  ethical,  and  more 
generally  of  His  spiritual,  teaching.  The  subject  must 
be  approached  with  an  open  mind.  It  would  be  as 
absurd  to  reject  or  to  disparage  the  ethical  ideal  of 
Jesus  a  priori  because  He  entertained  eschatological 
hopes  which  we  cannot  share,  as  it  would  be  to  reject 
a  priori  the  metaphysical  conceptions  of  Plato  because 
we  have  outgrown  his  physics,  or  to  scrap-heap  all 
the  metaphysical  systems  which  came  before  the 
Darwinian  revolution  in  Biology.  The  parallel  is 
not,  indeed,  adequate ;  for  Ethics  can  much  more 
easily  be  separated  from  Apocalyptic  Eschatology  than 
a  metaphysical  conception  of  the  Universe  can  be 
abstracted  from  its  author's  conceptions  of  natural  law. 
There  is  no  reason  then  why  the  Ethic  of  Jesus  should 
not  be  an  Ethic  of  universal,  paramount,  and  eternal 
value  because  He  may  have  thought  that  the  physical 
Universe  was  on  the  eve  of  a  vast  catastrophe. 

It  may  be  suggested  that,  though  the  eschatological 
ideas  do  not  affect  the  truth  of  the  moral  ideal,  they 
do  most  materially  affect  our  conception  of  Christ's 


Ethics  and  Eschatology  73 

Person,  and  so  the  authority  of  His  teaching.  We 
are  not  now  directly  concerned  with  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  Person  or  even  with  the  theological  aspect  of 
His  teaching.  That  is  not  my  subject.  But  I  am 
unwilling  to  have  suggested  a  difficulty  which  it  is 
quite  reasonable  for  religious  minds  to  feel  without 
saying  a  word  which  may  tend  to  meet  it.  In  the 
first  place  I  have  endeavoured  to  suggest  that  the 
extent  to  which  Jesus  shared  the  eschatological  ideas 
of  His  time  has  been  exaggerated,  and  that  some  of 
the  more  definite  eschatological  sayings  are  probably 
distorted  or  coloured  by  the  ideas  of  His  immediate 
disciples  or  of  the  early  Church.  But  we  shall  do  well 
to  prepare  ourselves  for  the  possibility  that  the  more 
advanced  Eschatologists  are  right  on  the  purely 
critical  questions,  or  at  least  that  some  quite  Christian 
minds  may  think  them  to  be  right,  and  to  ask  ourselves 
what  we  should  say  if  it  could  be  shown  that  all  the 
eschatological  sayings  were  uttered  and  were  meant  in 
a  sense  not  very  different  from  that  of  current  expecta- 
tion. I  should  venture  to  ask  whether  even  such  an 
admission  would  demand  more  than  a  slight  extension 
of  that  doctrine  of  the  limited  knowledge  of  Christ 
which  has  now,  I  suppose,  been  accepted  by  all  serious 
Theologians  and  by  most  thoughtful  Christians.  We 
have  most  of  us  come  to  recognize  that  the  theory  of 
the  unique  Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus  is  not  incom- 
patible with  the  admission  that  He  knew  no  more 
about   the   date   and   authorship   of   Old   Testament 


74  Conscience  and  Christ 

books  or  the  causation  of  mental  disease  than  other 
men  of  His  time.  Need  our  Christology  be  much  more 
affected  by  the  discovery  that  He  also  shared  their 
conceptions  as  to  the  way  and  the  time  in  which  God 
would  judge  the  world,  and  set  up  the  Messianic 
Kingdom  ?  We  gather  from  one  of  the  most  gener- 
ally accepted  ^  of  His  own  sayings  that  He  did  not 
claim  to  know  the  exact  date  of  the  Parousia : 
need  it  affect  the  fullness  of  His  spiritual  insight  that 
He  knew — perhaps  would  have  admitted  that  He 
knew — almost  as  little  about  its  mode  ?  The  fact 
that  He  accepted  traditional  language  and  even 
traditional  ideas  on  the  subject  which  were  in  point 
of  fact  mistakes,  is  no  reason  why  the  God  who  reveals 
Himself  in  some  mode  and  in  some  measure  through 
every  human  conscience,  who  dwells  to  some  extent 
in  every  human  soul,  should  not  have  made  His  fullest 
revelation  of  Himself  in  one  conscience,  one  character, 
one  life. 

If  what  we  want  in  a  doctrine  of  Christ's  Divinity  is 
a  supernatural  guarantee  for  an  externally  conununi- 
cated  moral  code,  then,  indeed,  our  conception  of 
that  doctrine  will  be  profoundly  modified  by  the  dis- 
covery that  He  could  make  mistakes.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  belief  in  His  Divinity  is  based  upon  the 
appeal  which  His  teaching  and  His  character  make 

^  Some  doubt  the  genuineness  of  "neither  the  Son/'  but  this 
omlaiioQ  does  not  afiect  the  disclaimer  of   such  knowledge  lor 


Ethics  and  £schatology  75 

to  heart  and  Conscience,  the  force  of  that  appeal  will 
be  in  no  way  weakened  by  the  discovery  that  it  has 
survived  so  many  changes  in  nlen's  conceptions  of  the 
material  Universe.  That  the  ethical  ideal  presented 
us  by  the  teaching  of  Christ  does  still  appeal  to  us  in 
its  essential  principles  as  the  highest  that  we  know 
is  the  thesis  which  I  shall  endeavour  to  establish  in 
the  following  lectures.^ 

*  The  following  passages  from  Mr.  Montefiore  seem  to  me  to  go 
to  the  root  of  the  matter  in  spite  of  his  not  being  willing  to  assign  to 
Jesus  that  absolutely  supreme  and  unique  position  which  Christians 
claim  for  Him  :  ' '  We  may  reasonably  argue  that  Jesus,  as  a  great  and 
original  religious  and  ethical  thinker,  could  hardly  not  have 
allowed  his  religious  and  ethical  views  to  affect  his  conception  of 
the  Messiah.  It  is  not  right  to  call  his  ethical  doctrine  a  mere 
*  Interimsethik.'  Righteousness  was  to  be  the  keynote  of  the  new 
Kingdom,  as  well  as  the  passport  of  admission  within  its  gates.  .  .  . 

"  And  among  those  virtues  upon  which  he  laid  stress  may  we  not 
safely  assume  that  the  virtue  of  self-sacrifice,  of  service  for  the  sake 
of  others,  was  undoubtedly  one  ?  Is  it  not  reasonable  then  to 
suppose  that  he  looked  upon  his  own  life  as  a  service,  and  that 
this  thought  may  even  have  developed  into  the  idea  that  he  might 
have  to  die  in  order  to  complete  his  service  ?  Death  would  not  be 
the  end ;  death  was  to  no  man  the  end ;  certainly  not  to  the 
righteous  ;  least  of  all  to  the  Messiah.  Was  the  glory  and  was  the 
triumph  perhaps  only  to  come  after  the  life  of  service  had  been 
ended  by  a  death  of  sacrifice  ?  If  the  principle  of  non-resistance 
was  adopted  by  him  in  his  ethics  for  daily  life,  it  is  not  unnatural 
that  it  should  have  been  adopted  by  him  as  regards  his  own  special 
life  and  his  position  as  Messiah.  Hence  we  see  how  it  may  have 
come  about  that  his  conception  of  the  Messiah  may  have  been 
modified.  The  Messiah  was  no  more  the  conqueror  and  the  warrior- 
prince  :  what  destruction  there  was  to  do  would  be  done  by  God . 
The  Messiah  would,  indeed,  rule  in  the  perfected  Kingdom,  but  this 
rule  was  hardly  looked  upon  in  the  ordinary  way,  and  the  stress  was 
not  habitually  laid  upon  it.  The  stress  was  rather  often  laid  upon 
the  Messiah's  work  in  the  present  and  the  near  future,  a  work  of 
service,  even  of  lowly  service,  and  a  work  which  was,  perhaps,  to 
culminate  in  death.  This,  then,  may  have  been  the  special  develop- 
ment made  by  Jesus  to  the  conception  of  the  Messiah  ;   and  such  a 


76 


Conscience  and  Christ 


view  woxild  fit  in  with  the  supposition  that  Jesus  identified  the 
Messiah  with  the  mysterious  Man  (Daniel  vii.  13)  who  was  to  be 
sent  by  God  at  the  great  crisis  to  superintend  the  final  consumma- 
tioQ.  and  that  he  believed  that  this  Man  was  himself — himself 
as  he  was  to  be  in  his  glory,  rather  than  himself  as  he  then  was  " 
{Syn.  Gospels,  I,  53-4). 

"  The  real  greatness  of  Jesus  consisted  in  that  side  of  his  teaching 
which  was  independent  of  these  old  watchwords  and  battle-cries. 
Though  the  more  original  and  beautiful  parts  of  his  teaching  are, 
as  it  were,  set  in  the  framework  of  the  conception  of  the  coming 
Messianic  era,  and  were  partly  produced  by  this  dominant  idea,  they 
are  yet  independent  of  the  framework,  and  they  can  be  detached 
from  it  and  can  survive  it "  {I.e.,  I,  58). 

For  a  further  discussion  of  the  subject  from  a  Christian  point 
I  may  refer  to  Ths  Eschaiologicai  Question  in  the  Gospels  by  the 
Rev.  C.  W.  Emmet,  and  an  excellent  article  by  the  same  writer  on 
"  Is  the  Teaching  of  Jesus  an  Intehmsethik  ?  "  in  The  Expositor 
(Nov.,  1912) ;  also  to  The  Escheiiology  oj  Jesus  by  Dr.  Latimer 
Jackson.  No  recent  writer  has  done  more  to  reduce  the 
eschatological  element  in  Christ's  teaching  to  its  proper  place 
than  Prof.  B.  W.  Bacon  (of  Yale)  in  The  Beginmngs  of  the 
Gospel  Story.  On  the  critical  side  of  the  qnestioo  see  Canoo 
Streeter's  Appendix  to  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem, 
His  general  conclusion  is  that  "  in  the  series  Q,  Bfark.  Matthew, 
there  is  a  steady  development  in  the  direction  of  emphasizing, 
making  more  definite,  and  even  creating,  sayings  of  our  Lord  of 
the  catastrophic  Apoodyptic  type,  and  of  thrusting  more  and  more 
into  the  background  the  sayings  of  a  contrary  tenor"  (p.  433). 
This  is,  of  course,  quite  consistent  with  the  possibility  that  St.  Luke 
may  have  somewhat  attenuated  the  eschatological  eleinent. 


LECTURE   III 
THE  ETHICAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  CHRIST 

IN  my  last  two  lectures  I  have  tried  to  remove 
some  a  priori  objections  to  the  principle — usually 
accepted  alike  by  the  most  orthodox  and  the  most 
liberal  forms  of  Christianity — that  the  ethical  teaching 
of  an  historical  person  who  lived  nineteen  hundred  years 
ago  can  still  be  regarded  as  representing  in  its  essentials 
the  highest  ideal  of  the  modem  world.  I  admitted — 
or  rather  strongly  contended — that  the  authority 
which  can  rightly  be  claimed  for  the  historical  Christ 
must  base  itself  upon  the  fact  that  the  moral  con- 
sciousness of  the  present  still  recognizes  its  truth,  and 
finds  its  highest  aspirations  satisfied  by  the  picture 
which  the  Gospels  present  us  of  His  character  and  His 
teaching.  I  tried  to  show  that,  in  spite  of  the  differ- 
ence between  His  circumstances  and  ours — in  spite  of 
the  eschatological  medium,  so  to  speak,  through  which 
His  teaching  was  given — there  was  no  a  priori  reason  why 
such  a  teacher  should  not  have  taught  an  ethical  ideal 
which,  in  its  fundamental  principles,  later  ages  might 
recognize  as  eternally  true.  To-day  I  want  to  enquire 
what  in  its  fundamental  principles  this  ideal  actually 
is,  and  whether  it  does  as  a  matter  of  fact  commend 

n 


78  Conscience  and  Christ 

itself  to  the  moral  consciousness  of  the  modem  world 
at  its  highest.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  Christian 
Ethic  is  not  presented  to  us  in  the  New  Testament 
as  a  philosophical  system.^  But  that  does  not  make 
it  incapable  of  being  reduced  to  a  system  which  may 
harmonize  with  the  results  of  the  deepest  philosophical 
reflection.  By  reflection  on  the  actual  practice  of 
great  Artists  we  may  build  up  Canons  of  Criticism,  a 
system  of  ^Esthetics,  a  Philosophy  of  taste  :  but  the 
Artist  himself,  as  a  rule,  has  no  such  system.  The 
poet  may  teach  profoimd  truths  which  the  speculative 
philosopher  may  subsequently  reduce  to  something  Uke 
a  philosophy  of  life  :  but  in  the  poet's  mind  they  are 
not,  as  a  rule,  reduced  to  a'  philosophy.  And  so  the 
greatest  moral  teachers  of  mankind  have  not,  usually, 
been  speculative  philosophers.  That  was  eminently  the 
case  with  Jesus  Christ  and  His  first  disciples.  It  is 
true  that  an  instinct  of  reverence  is  apt  to  blind  us  to 
the  immense  amount  of  real,  hard  thinking  which  was 
implied  in  the  rehgious  and  moral  teaching  of  Jesus  : 
the  greatness,  the  originaUty  of  Jesus  was  intellectual 

*  On  the  other  hand  it  is  a  great  deal  too  much  to  say  with 
Mr.  Selwyn  {The  Teaching  of  Christ,  p.  79)  that  "  there  is  no  Chris- 
tian ethic,  but  only  a  Christian  spirit."  If  the  Christian  spirit  (in 
matters  of  character  and  conduct)  is  capable  of  articulate  expres- 
s&on,  that  expretskm  will  be  an  Ethic,  which  can  be  to  some  extent 
analysed  and  systematized  by  the  philosopher.  If  it  is  not  capable 
of  such  expression,  it  would  be  useless  to  go  to  the  Gospels  to  dis- 
cover that  spirit.  A  Christianity  which  is  not  capable  of  articulate 
expression  can  have  no  connexion  with  History.  This  may  be  said 
with  the  fullest  allowance  for  the  inadequacy  of  all  formula  fully 
to  embody  an  ethical  ideal. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ      79 

as  well  as  moral.  But  still  His  teaching — His  re- 
ligious and  His  ethical  teaching  alike — was  not  pre- 
sented in  the  form  either  of  a  theological  system  or  of 
a  speculative  philosophy.  It  came  to  Him  by  way 
of  intuition  :  it  was  presented  to  His  hearers  in  the 
form  of  aphorism  or  of  parable.  It  was  homely 
practical  teaching  addressed  for  the  most  part  to  people 
of  little  culture  or  education,  or  with  a  culture  which 
was  popular,  intensely  national,  and  closely  connected 
with  Religion.  In  the  present  lecture  I  want  to  ex- 
amine the  actual  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  form  in 
which  He  presented  it  to  His  own  mind  and  to  that 
of  His  hearers. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
Christ  presupposes  a  morahty  of  a  very  advanced 
and  developed  order.  I  must  not  now  stay  to  com- 
pare the  ethical  teaching  of  the  Jewish  prophets  with 
that  of  the  other  great  ethical  and  religious  systems 
of  the  world.  I  shall  have  something  to  say  upon 
that  subject  hereafter.  It  must  suffice  for  the  present 
to  remark  that,  if  we  compare  the  teaching  of  the 
later  Judaism  with  the  Ethics  of  ancient  Greece  and 
Rome,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  represents,  on  the 
whole,  a  higher  level  than  any  teaching  known  to  the 
West,  at  least  till  the  time  of  Zeno  and  the  Stoics. 
In  many  respects  the  ideal  of  developed  Judaism 
represents  a  higher  moral  standard  even  than  that  of 
the  two  great  Hellenic  thinkers — Socrates  and  Plato — 
whom  we  may  fairly  recognize  as  belonging,  like  the 


8o  Conscience  and  Christ 

Jewish  seers,  to  the  goodly  fellowship  of  the  Prophets. 
It  was  enormously  superior  to  the  intensely  narrow, 
civic,  aristocratic  morality  of  Aristotle.  It  was 
strong  just  where  the  Greek  philosophers  were  weakest. 
The  political  and  the  intellectual  development  of  Greece 
were  no  doubt  greatly  in  advance  of  anything  known 
in  Israel.  All  those  virtues  which  had  to  do  wth 
pohtical  activity  and  with  the  intellectual  Ufe  were 
better  imderstood  by  Socrates  and  Plato  than  by 
Amos  or  Isaiah  :  and,  of  course,  the  high  intellectual 
development  carried  with  it  emancipation  from  some 
superstitions  in  matters  of  conduct.  But  in  Religion, 
and  in  those  matters  of  personal  morality  which  are 
apt  to  be  most  affected  by  the  state  of  religious 
feehng  and  reUgious  belief,  the  Greeks  of  Aristotle's 
time  were  mere  children  compared  with  the  Jews. 
The  principle  of  Justice,  in  its  simpler  and  most 
elementary  form  constitutes,  indeed,  a  common  groimd 
between  the  civic  morality  of  Socrates  and  the  religious 
morahty  of  Judaism.  But  in  two  great  matters  the 
Jews  were  enormously  in  advance  of  the  Greeks — in 
the  matter  of  Chastity  and  in  the  matter  of  Charity. 

Whether  we  look  to  the  teaching  of  the  philosophers 
or  to  the  average  practice,  there  can  be  Uttlc  doubt 
about  the  superiority  of  the  Jews  on  the  side  of  sexual 
Morality.  Polygamy  was,  indeed,  allowed  among  the 
Jews,  though  before  the  time  of  our  Lord  it  had 
become  rare  and  exceptional ;  and  the  position  of 
women  was  perhaps  slightly  more  honourable  and 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ      8i 

more  secure  in  parts  at  least  of  the  Greek  world  than 
among  the  Jews.  But  the  great  principle  which  con- 
fines sexual  relations  to  lawful  marriage  was  hardly 
propounded  even  by  Moralists  among  the  Greeks : 
it  was  fully  acknowledged  among  the  later  Jews. 
The  ordinary  Greek  morality  on  this  matter  was 
simply  that  extra-matrimonial  intercourse  must  be  with 
non-citizen  women;  for  that  such  intercourse  was 
profoundly  degrading  to  the  woman,  the  general  feeling 
of  mankind  has  almost  universally  recognized.  But 
there  was  no  sense  of  the  intrinsic  rights  of  Humanity 
as  such  which  could  protect  the  non-citizen  woman 
from  that  degradation,  or  make  it  appear  wrong  for 
the  man  to  subject  her  to  it.  I  need  do  no  more  than 
allude  to  those  still  darker  vices  which,  if  they  were 
not  exactly  approved  by  the  highest  pagan  morality, 
were  condemned  with  a  lightness  which  is  itself  the 
best  evidence  of  their  commonness  even  in  the  most 
cultivated,  refined,  and  aristocratic  Greek  circles. 
And  the  higher  moral  teachers  of  the  time  did  little 
to  preach  a  sounder  morality  on  these  matters.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Jewish  Law  and  the  Jewish 
prophets  are  full  of  denunciations  of  sexual  trans- 
gression of  all  kinds.  1  And  not  only  the  prophets.  In 
some  respects  what  is  called  the  Wisdom  Uterature — 

1  As  to  Adultery,  see  Lev.  xx.  lo ;  xix.  20-22.  (It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  penalty  of  death  was  actually  carried  out.)  As  to 
Fornication,  Lev.  xix.  29  ;  Deut.  xxiii.  17,  18  ;  Jer.  v.  7  ;  Amos 
ii.  7  ;  Hos.  iv.  14.  Cf.  also  Gen.  xiii.  13,  xix.  5-7  ;  Deut.  xxiii.  17, 
18  ;   I  Kings  xv.  12,  etc, 

G 


82  Conscience  and  Christ 

the  Book  of  Proverbs  in  the  Canon,  and  the  Books 
of  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus  now  relegated  to  the 
Apocrypha — represent  perhaps  on  the  whole  a  lower 
level  of  religious  insight  and  religious  enthusiasm  than 
the  great  prophetic  teachers  of  the  later  Monarchy  and 
the  Exile  ;  but  at  all  events  in  this  they  show  the 
same  superiority  to  the  contemporary  Greek  morality 
— that  they  are  full  of  zeal  for  social  Purity.* 

In  the  other  great  matter  to  which  I  have  alluded 
the  superiority  of  the  Jews  is  still  more  marked.  It 
is  a  commonplace  to  say  that  the  Greeks  in  the  time 
of  Aristotle  had  very  little  notion  of  the  rights  of  man 
as  such.  Aristocrat  and  democrat  might  differ  as  to 
who  should  be  citizens,  but  they  were  agreed  that  the 
citizens  should  not  be  the  whole  population  :  for  the 
rights  of  the  barbarian  or  the  alien  Greek,  the  slave 
or  the  freedman,  the  Athenian  democrat  had  only 
a  little  more  tenderness  than  the  aristocratic  Aristotle, 
who  tells  us  frankly  that  *'  the  work  of  the  artisan  or 
the  labourer  has  nothing  to  do  with  Virtue,"  and  that 
therefore  it  is  best  that  such  persons  should  be  alto- 
gether excluded  from  citizenship — from  civil  rights  as 
well  as  political  rights.  Even  as  regards  citizens,  the 
Greek  conception  of  one's  duty  towards  one's  neigh- 
bour was  for  the  most  part  limited  to  the  idea  of  public 

*  Piov.  ii.  16-19,  V.  3-6,  vii.  5-27 ;  Ecdus.  ix.  3-9,  xli.  20  ; 
ITinadom  hr.  6,  xiv.  24.  26.  The  letter  of  the  law  only  forbade  an 
Israelite  woman  to  be  a  prostitute  (Deut.  xxiii.  17).  This  seems  to 
have  led  to  the  multiplication  of  foreign  prostitutes.  Hence  tbio 
denunciation  of  the  "  strange  woman  "  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs* 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ      83 

service  (in  that  matter  they  have  still  much  to  teach 
modern  Christians)  and  to  the  idea  of  Justice,  that 
is  to  say,  respect  for  the  property  and  other  legal  or 
customary  rights  of  individuals.  There  was  little  or 
no  feeling  that  there  is  a  duty  of  positive  service  or 
mutual  helpfulness  owed  by  one  individual  to  another, 
even  within  the  ranks  of  the  citizen-class  beyond  the 
limited  circle  of  one's  own  family  or  friends. 

Still  less  was  there  any  idea  of  a  special  claim  on  the 
part  of  the  weak,  the  oppressed,  the  sick,  the  suffering, 
the  poor.  The  duties  of  Philanthropy,  of  Almsgiving, 
of  Mercy  are  simply  non-existent  in  the  elaborate^ 
enumeration  of  virtues  and  duties  given  us  by  Aris- 
totle ;  and  in  the  far  higher,  more  spiritual,  more 
cosmopolitan  teaching  of  Socrates  and  Plato  there' 
is  almost  as  Httle  inculcation  of  these  virtues,  if  there 
is  less  that  is  shocking  to  modern  Christian  sentiment 
in  their  way  of  treating  the  ignorant  and  the  humbly 
bom.  With  all  his  magnificent  conscientiousness,  his 
scrupulosity  about  matters  of  conduct,  and  his  sense 
of  public  duty,  it  never  seems  to  have  occurred  even 
to  Socrates  to  ask  himself  whether  it  might  not  be 
morally  binding  on  Society  or  on  individuals  to  think 
about  the  kind  of  life  that  was  being  led  by  his  poor 
fellow-citizen  in  the  next  street  or  by  the  slave  in  his 
own  household.  To  Plato  the  sick  were  simply  objects 
of  dislike.  The  economic  problems  of  our  great  cities 
were  hardly  known  in  their  modern  form  :  but  still 
the  orphan,  the  widow,  the  unfortunate  have  always 


84  Conscience  and  Christ 

been  with  us :  yet  (so  far  as  we  can  discover)  in  the 
time  of  Aristotle  nobody  troubled  their  heads  about 
them,  either  speculatively  or  practically.  Even  high- 
class  citizen  women  were  not  thought  to  matter  very 
much,  though,  of  course,  the  Greek  idea  of  their  position 
was  far  removed  from  the  ordinary  Oriental  concep- 
tion of  woman  as  the  mere  toy  and  plaything  of  man. 
The  ethical  teaching  of  the  Socratic  School  reaches  its 
highest  level  in  the  scenes  connected  with  the  trial  and 
death  of  Socrates.  Socrates  died  a  martyr  to  truth 
and  to  civic  duty  :  yet  in  the  Phaedo  Socrates  drives 
his  wife  and  children  from  the  room  with  something  like 
brutality  that  his  last  moments  might  be  spent  in  \m- 
disturbed  philosophical  converse  with  his  male  friends. 
What  a  contrast  to  all  this  is  presented  by  the 
teaching  of  the  Jewish  prophets!  Amos  lived  three 
centuries  and  a  half  before  Socrates.  He  is  full  of 
denunciation  against  the  cruelty  and  oppression  of 
the  poor,  whether  practised  by  the  enemies  of  Israel 
or  by  its  own  rulers  and  rich  men.  "  For  three  trans- 
gressions of  Israel,  yea,  for  four,  I  will  not  turn  away 
the  punishment  thereof ;  because  they  have  sold  the 
righteous  for  silver  and  the  needy  for  a  pair  of  shoes  : 
that  pant  after  the  dust  of  the  earth  on  the  head  of 
the  poor,  and  turn  aside  the  way  of  the  meek.'*  ^  Isaiah 
lived  some  three  centuries  before  Socrates.  Doubtless 
Socrates  had  a  strong  sense  of  Justice  ;  but  it  would 
be  difficult  to  find  in  any  teaching  attributed  to  him 

*  Amos  ii.  6,  7. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ      85 

much  special  tenderness  for  the  poor  or  unfortunate — 
any  equivalent  of  Isaiah's  '*  seek  judgement,  relieve 
the  oppressed,  judge  the  fatherless,  plead  for  the 
widow/ '1  The  prophet  who  is  commonly  known  as 
the  later  Isaiah  lived  more  than  a  century  before 
Plato.  The  Hellenic  philosopher  would  have  sym- 
pathized keenly  enough  with  the  Jewish  prophet's 
denunciation  of  superstitious  confidence  in  sacrifices 
and  fasts ;  but  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  him, 
in  enforcing  the  idea  that  the  true  fast  was  repentance 
and  righteousness,  to  make  his  conduct  to  inferiors 
the  test  of  a  man's  moral  position.  *'  Is  not  this  the 
fast  that  I  have  chosen  ?  to  loose  the  bonds  of  wicked- 
ness, to  undo  the  bands  of  the  yoke,  and  to  let  the 
oppressed  go  free,  and  that  ye  break  every  yoke  ?  Is 
it  not  to  deal  thy  bread  to  the  hungry,  and  that  thou 
bring  the  poor  that  are  cast  out  to  thy  house  ?  when 
thou  seest  the  naked,  that  thou  cover  him  ;  and  that 
thou  hide  not  thyself  from  thine  own  flesh  ?  "^  in  the 
teaching  of  the  Jewish  prophets  Mercy  is  always 
closely  associated  with  Justice  in  descriptions  alike 
of  the  character  of  God  and  of  the  character  which  He 
requires  in  men.  Neither  Mercy  nor  any  equivalent 
of  it  appears  in  Aristotle's  very  detailed  list  of  virtues  ; 
the  nearest  he  gets  to  it  is  in  the  Equity  which  is  only 
a  higher  form  of  Justice. 

In  the  interval  between  the  great  prophetic  era  and 

*  Isa.  i.  17. 

*  Isa.  Iviii.  6,  7,  often  assigned  to  a  later  "  Trito-Isaiah." 


86  Conscience  and  Christ 

the  birth  of  Christ  a  twofold  change  had  come  over 
the  ethical  ideas  of  the  Jews.  At  scarcely  any  other 
period  in  the  development  of  any  nation  have  progress 
and  retrogression  been  so  strangely  mixed.  On  the 
one  hand  the  place  of  the  prophet  was  taken  by  the 
scribe.  The  customs  about  sacrifice  and  ritual  and 
religious  observance  which  had  originally  been  handed 
down  by  oral  tradition  were  now  reduced  to  writing, 
supplemented  by  highly  sacerdotal  additions,  and 
combined  with  earlier  documents,  in  the  books  which 
we  call  the  Pentateuch.  The  letter  of  the  Law  came 
to  be  surrounded  with  superstitious  reverence.  And 
yet  the  Mosaic  Law,  as  it  was  embodied  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, became  in  the  hands  of  the  Pharisaic  scribes 
only  the  basis  of  a  vast  superstructure  of  comment, 
ampHfication,  and  Casuistry.  The  Law  contained  a 
general  command  to  rest  upon  the  Sabbath :  the 
Pharisees  developed  this  command  into  a  prohibition 
of  the  most  ordinary,  necessary,  and  even  beneficent 
occupations  of  hfe.  It  was  imlawful  on  the  Sabbath 
to  pluck  ears  of  com  because  that  was  equivalent  to 
reaping,  or  to  rub  them  in  the  hand  because  that  was 
threshing,  or  to  walk  more  than  2000  cubits — less 
than  three-quarters  of  a  mile — because  Moses  had 
conunanded  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness  to  remain  in 
their  places  on  the  Sabbath-day.  And  so  on.  The 
dietetic  regulations  and  the  rules  about  avoiding  con- 
tact with  a  dead  body,  which  the  Jews  had  no  doubt 
inherited   from   primitive  systems  of  Totemism   and 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ      87 

Taboo,  were  insisted  upon  with  a  punctiliousness 
which  shut  off  the  Jews  from  all  ordinary  intercourse 
with  Gentile  neighbours.  It  was  the  fear  of  incurring 
ceremonial  pollution  which  drove  the  Pharisees  to  in- 
sist so  much  upon  the  washing  of  hands  before  eat- 
ing, upon  the  washing  of  cups  and  pots  and  the 
like,^  and  this  carried  with  it  unwillingness  to  sit  at 
table  with  Gentiles.  Even  sound  moral  principles 
were  degraded  and  narrowed  by  being  made  to  rest 
upon  the  positive  written  rules  of  an  authoritative 
book,  instead  of  being  treated  as  the  injunctions  of  a 
Conscience  which  believed  itself  to  derive  its  inspira- 
tion directly  from  a  living  God :  while  an  immense 
host  of  petty  observances  of  no  real  moral  importance 
were  placed  side  by  side  with  the  eternal  laws  of 
Justice  and  Benevolence,  and  this  had  the  inevitable 
result  of  practically  throwing  them  into  the  shade  and 
at  times  of  contravening  them.  Men  were  taught 
(if  we  may  accept  our  Lord's  saying  as  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  the  fact)  how  to  avoid  supporting  their 
parents  by  taking  a  vow  not  to  give  them  anything,  2  how 

^  Mark  vii.  4.     But  we  are  told  that  this  is  an  exaggeration. 

*  According  to  Mr.  Herford  {Pharisaism,  p.  159)  "  If  a  man  make 
a  vow  upon  a  matter  between  himself  and  his  parents,  i.e.  one  which, 
if  he  kept  it,  will  occasion  injury  or  loss  to  them,  then  he  is  to  be 
released  from  it  on  the  ground  of  honour  to  his  parents.  The 
commentators  on  the  Mishnah  all  agree  in  this  interpretation,  and 
there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  intention  of  the  Mishnah.  Moreover, 
there  is  no  indication  that  there  ever  had  been  a  different  opinion, 
as  if  the  statement  now  made  in  the  Mishnah  had  taken  the  place 
of  an  earlier  statement.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Pharisees 
ever  held  or  taught  the  doctrine  attributed  to  them  by  Jesus, 
while  it  is  contradicted  in  the  most  definite  manner  by  the  declara- 


88  Conscience  and  Christ 

to  cheat  their  neighbours  by  taking  oaths  which  had  no 
binding  force,  how  to  neglect  the  duties  of  Charity  and 
Mercy  under  pretence  of  observing  the  Sabbath,  and 
so  on. 

All  this  represented  serious  moral  retrogression. 
Legalism  took  the  place  of  Morahty.  Many  quaUfica- 
tions  might  be  required  if  we  were  dealing  with  the 
question  of  rabbinical  Morality  in  detail.  No  doubt 
it  is  possible  to  quote  from  the  Rabbis  passages  in 
which  the  comparative  unimportance  of  ceremonial 
as  compared  with  moral  transgression  is  insisted 
upon ;  but  still  the  existence  of  an  extreme  over- 
estimate of  the  letter  of  the  ceremonial  Law  is  hardly 
denied  by  any  student  of  the  Talmud :   the  pages  of 

tioos  of  their  own  legal  authorities. ' '  When  Kir.  Herf ord  says ' '  There 
it  no  evidence/'  he  leems  to  overlook  the  evidence  of  the  Goepels 
themselves.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  the  saying  of  Jetns 
is  to  be  accounted  for  if  the  other  view  had  absolutely  no  supportera. 
It  may  weU  be  that  it  was  at  no  time  the  accepted  view.  The  Talmud 
was  ol  course  not  put  into  its  present  form  till  centuries  later ; 
and,  however  much  we  may  be  disposed  to  trust  the  attribution  of 
particolar  sayings  to  the  Rabbis  of  an  earlier  period,  it  is  unreason- 
able to  suppose  that  all  their  opinions  were  preserved.  This  was 
one  which  later  Rabbis  might  well  wish  to  have  forgotten.  As 
Mr.  Montefiore  remarks,  "  It  is  not  at  aU  improbable  that  so  vast 
an  innoN'ation  as  the  annulment  of  vows  met  with  opposition  at 
first "  {The  Synoptic  Gospels,  I,  p.  i66).  According  to  the  same  writer 
*'  '  Cor  ban  '  does  not  mean  that  the  property  was  dedicated  to  the 
oae  of  the  Temple.  The  word  is  used  as  a  mere  oath.  When  I  say. 
'  Corban,  if  you  shall  ever  eat  anything  that  is  mine/  that  does  not 
mean  that  my  eatables  are  dedicated  to  the  use  of  the  Temple,  in  which 
caae  neither  I  nor  you  might  eat  them,  but  merely  that,  so  far  as 
3roo  are  concerned,  they  are  '  dedicated  ' ;  you  may  never  eat  what 
is  mine.  I  should  sin  in  letting  you  eat  any  of  my  food,  so  long  as 
the  vow  stands,  and  you,  if  you  ate,  would  sin  also.  The  Temple 
does  not  oome  in  "  (/.c.  p.  164). 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ      89 

the  Gospels  would  be  sufficient  evidence  of  the  fact, 
even  if  we  had  no  other :  for,  though  Christian  com- 
pilers may  have  exaggerated  this  side  of  Judaism,  they 
could  not  have  invented  it.  The  antagonism  to 
Judaism  to  which  such  representations  would  have 
to  be  ascribed,  if  nr  t  justified  by  the  facts,  could  not 
have  existed  but  k  r  the  bitter  conflict  between  Jews 
and  Jewish  Christians  on  this  matter  of  the  ceremonial 
Law. 

And  yet  the  enormous  change  which  took  place 
during  this  somewhat  obscure  period  in  the  mental 
history  of  Judaism  was  not  all  retrogression.  After 
all  the  Law  did  contain  the  most  essential  principles 
of  Justice  and  neighbourly  conduct,  though  it  con- 
tained much  besides.  Reverence  for  the  Law  was, 
after  all,  reverence  for  Morality,  though  sometimes 
the  moral  precepts  which  it  enshrined  were  spoiled 
by  the  company  in  which  they  found  themselves. 
I  must  not  now  speak  of  the  religious  changes  which 
took  place  during  this  period  further  than  to  notice 
that  they  were,  in  part  at  least,  changes  which  made 
for  righteousness.  There  was  a  growth  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  Jehovah's  goodwill  not  merely  to  Israel 
collectively,  but  to  the  individual  Israelite.  And  that 
carried  with  it  the  belief  in  individual  responsibility. 
In  the  teaching  of  Ezekiel  the  belief  in  a  mere  collec- 
tive or  family  responsibility  ("  the  fathers  have  eaten 
sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge  ") 
was  superseded  by  the  idea  of  a  divine  Justice  which 


90  Conscience  and  Christ 

took  account  of  individual  acts :  "  the  soul  that 
sinneth,  it  shall  die."^  During  the  Exile  and  the 
Dispersion,  worship  was  spiritualized  ;  the  Synagogue 
for  a  time  took  the  place  of  the  Temple,  and  continued 
side  by  side  with  it  after  the  Return  :  the  Scribe — the 
expounder  of  the  Law,  the  teacher  of  righteousness, 
the  preacher  of  ReUgion — became  more  important 
than  the  sacrificing  Priest.  Prayer  and  reading  and 
meditation — spiritual  modes  of  worship  which  could 
be  practised  anywhere — overshadowed  in  importance 
the  sacrificial  ritual  of  Jerusalem.  And  all  this  did 
carry  with  it  a  deeper  feeUng  of  the  importance  of 
personal  conduct,  a  deeper  sense  of  sin,  a  more  anxious 
conscientiousness.  All  these  things  imply  a  moral 
advance,  and  paved  the  way  for  the  spiritual  revolution 
which  transformed  Judaism  into  Christianity.  It  may 
be  that  on  the  whole  the  progress  of  this  age  was  far 
greater  than  the  retrogression.* 

And  if  we  look  to  the  details  of  the  Moral  Law, 
there  too  we  see  advance.  If  we  compare  the  prophets 
with  the  apocryphal  books  of  later  Judaism — both 
those  accepted  as  dcutero-canonical  and  those  which 

*  Ezek.  xviii.  3,  4. 

*  "  It  is  high  time  to  pat  away  altogether,  as  one  of  the  exploded 
errors  of  history*,  the  notion  that  Ezra,  by  the  exaltation  of  the 
Torah  to  the  supreme  place  in  Jewish  religion,  set  that  rehgion  ujMn 
the  down-grade.  I  believe  it  to  be  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that 
after  Moaes  and  Isaiah  (or  perhaps  Jeremiah)  Ezra  is  the  tliird 
greateet  man  in  the  Old  Testament"  (Herford.  Pharisaism,  p.  74). 
This  may  be  so ;  still,  we  need  not  look  beyond  the  Book  of  Ezra 
Had!  to   see  that  the  rrKgimnmess  of  Ezra  and  his  age  had  its 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ      91 

have  never  found  their  way  into  any  Canon — there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  this  latest  age  of  Judaism  was 
an  age  of  ethical  progress.  There  is  less  of  ethical 
inspiration,  far  less  of  reUgious  inspiration ;  but  if 
we  tried  to  compile  a  code  of  duties  out  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  then  compiled  a  similar  code  from  the 
Apocrypha,  the  latter  would  come  considerably  nearer 
to  a  modern  and  a  Christian  formulation  of  the  whole 
duty  of  man.  The  prophetic  insistence  upon  personal 
and  upon  social  Morality  becomes  more  detailed  and 
more  exacting.  The  general  inculcation  of  beneficence 
to  individuals  is  translated  into  definite  precepts 
about  the  relief  of  the  sick,^  of  widows  and  orphans,  of 
the  poor  and  helpless  ;  systematic  almsgiving  ^  becomes 
a  recognized  duty.  If  we  would  judge  this  period 
aright,  we  must  remember  the  enormous  capacity  of 
the  human  mind  for  inconsistency.  The  very  same 
teachers  who  spoiled  Judaism  by  their  legalism,  their 
ceremonialism,  their  casuistry,  were  quite  capable  of 
appreciating  the  best  elements  of  Old  Testament 
teaching  and  even  of  improving  upon  them.  Doubt- 
less there  were  different  schools  and  tendencies  even 
among  the  teachers  of  the  same  period.    The  Greek- 

^  "  Also  to  the  poor  man  stretch  out  thy  hand,  that  thy  blessing 
may  be  perfected"  (Ecclus.  vii.  32).  '*  Be  not  slow  to  visit  a  sick 
man"   (z6.,  35). 

*  "  As  thy  substance  is,  give  alms  of  it  according  to  thine  abund- 
ance :  if  thou  have  little,  be  not  afraid  to  give  alms  according  to 
that  little  "  (Tobit  iv.  8).  There  is  of  course  a  superstitious  side  to 
this  insistence  upon  Almsgiving,  e.g.  "  Almsgiving  will  make  an 
atonement  for  sins  "  (Ecclus.  iii.  30). 


92  Conscience  and  Christ 

Jewish  writer  of  Wisdom  and  the  Hebrew  writer  of 
Ecclesiasticus  were  on  the  whole  perhaps  more  Uberal 
and  more  enlightened  than  many  of  the  Rabbis  whose 
teachings  survive  in  the  Talmud.  Among  the  Rabbis 
themselves  the  School  of  Hillel  may  have  been  more 
liberal  than  the  School  of  Shammai,  and  so  on.  And 
there  is  one  writing  of  this  period  which  stands  abso- 
lutely alone  in  its  close  approach  to  the  teaching  of 
Jesus.  In  the  prominence  which  it  gives  to  the 
love  of  God  and  one's  neighbour,  in  its  inculcation  of 
forgiveness— €ven  to  enemies — in  its  insistence  upon 
purity  of  heart  and  intention,  the  "  Testaments  of  the 
Twelve  Patriarchs  "  may  be  taken  as  representing 
the  highest  ideal  that  the  world  ever  knew  before 
the  coming  of  Christ.  And  it  is  a  work  which,  it  is 
highly  probable,  Jesus  had  actually  read.^  There  are 
many  different  moral  levels  among  the  Jewish  writers 
of  this  period.  And  yet  it  is  probable  that  it  was  very 
often  the  same  men  who  taught  the  things  which  excited 

*  The  date  of  the  original  work  is  fixed  by  Dr.  Charles  as  between 
109  and  105  B.C.  The  Jewish  additions  belong  chiefly  to  the  period 
70-40  B.C.  There  are  Christian  interpolations  which  long  caused 
the  whole  work  to  be  mnrfgntil  to  a  Christian  writer.  Here  ax« 
a  few  of  its  noblest  precepts  which  are  not  interpolations :  "  Love 
3re  one  another  from  the  heart ;  and,  if  a  man  sin  against  thee, 
speak  peaceably  to  him.  and  in  thy  soul  hold  not  guile ;  and  if  he 
repent  and  confess,  forgive  him  "  (Gad.  vi.  3) :  Issachar  (vii.  6)  is 
made  to  say.  "  I  loved  the  Lord  ;  likewise  also  every  man  with  all 
my  heart."  There  is  no  trace  of  a  limitation  of  this  love  to  fellow- 
countrymen,  and  the  Messiah  whose  advent  is  announced  is  to  be 
the  Saviour  of  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  The  emphasis  on  sexual 
purity  is  very  marked,  while  there  is  no  disparagement  of  marriage, 
e.g.  "  He  that  hath  a  pure  mind  in  love,  looketh  not  after  a  woman 
with  a  view  to  fomicatioa  ;   for  he  hath  no  defilement  in  his  heart. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ      93 

our  Lord's  scathing  denunciations  and  who  uttered  the 
sayings  upon  which  His  own  early  spiritual  life  must 
have  been  fed  and  nurtured.  There  is  much  of  the 
highest  moral  teaching  and  the  most  spiritual  religious 
teaching  in  the  sayings  of  the  Rabbis  who  lived  before 
and  during  the  ministry  of  Christ.  And  yet  only  a 
strong  anti-Christian  bias  can  suppose  that  Jesus  is 
adequately  accounted  for  by  the  ethical  teaching  of 
Hillel.  Wellhausen  has  remarked  in  a  famous  passage 
that  learned  Jews  are  fond  of  pointing  out  that  all  the 
moral  precepts  of  Jesus  can  be  found  in  the  Talmud. 
*'  Yes/'  he  replies,  "  all  and  much  more."^  And  it  is, 
as  he  goes  on  to  point  out,  just  in  the  absence  of  that 
much  more  that  the  superiority  of  Jesus  lies.  The 
pure  wheat  of  Morality  was  to  be  found  in  the  teaching 
of  the  Rabbis,  but  the  tares  were  there  too,  and  the 
wheat  was  in  danger  of  being  choked  by  the  tares. 
The  work  of  Jesus  consisted  to  a  very  great  extent  in 
separating  what  was  true  and  eternally  valuable  in  the 

because  the  spirit  of  God  resteth  upon  him  "  (Benj.  viii.  2).  Some  of 
the  contrasts  drawn  in  the  text  between  the  ordinary  Jewish 
morality  and  the  teaching  of  Christ  do  not  apply  to  this  remarkable 
writing.  Prof.  Burkitt,  however,  tells  me  that  in  his  opinion 
the  translator  was  a  Christian,  and  that  the  translation  may  have 
been  slightly,  perhaps  only  slightly,  influenced  by  Christian 
ideas. 

^  Cf.  "  Jewish  scholars  think  that  all  that  Jesus  has  said  is  to  be 
found  also  in  the  Talmud.  Yes,  all  and  much  more.  How  is  it  that 
He  was  the  first  to  discover  something  true  and  eternal  in  the  waste 
of  legal  learning  ?  Why  has  no  one  else  done  so  ?  And  is  it 
certain,  when  a  saying  of  Jesus  is  attributed  to  the  Rabbi  Hillel, 
that  in  such  cases  the  Talmud  is  right  ?  Can  nothing  from  the 
Gospels  have  been  introduced  into  the  Talmud,  and  be  sailing 
there  under  false  colours  ?     That  tjie  Talmud  depends  upon  pure 


94  Conscience  and  Christ 

traditions  of  His  people  from  the  lower  and  inconsistent 
elements  which  in  practice  largely  neutralized  their 
effect. 

All  this  may  seem  to  be  a  long  preface  to  a  lecture 
which  is  to  deal  with  the  moral  teaching  of  Jesus,  but 
it  is  impossible  to  understand  the  imique  position 
which  that  teaching  occupies  in  the  moral  history  of 
the  world  unless  we  realize  exactly  what  were  the 
defects  in  the  current  moral  ideas  of  contemporary 
Judaism,  and  what  was  the  transformation  which 
it  wanted  to  turn  it  into  an  adequate  basis  for  the 
world's  future  moral  development.  Three  great 
changes  were  introduced  by  our  Lord  into  the  current 
moral  ideas  of  His  time.  They  are  briefly  these : 
(i)  The  separation  of  the  genuinely  ethical  and  perma- 
nently valuable  elements  in  the  teaching  of  the  Jewish 
Law  from  the  ceremonial  and  transitory  elements ; 
(2)  the  correction  of  the  current  legalism  by  a  more 
inward  morality  which  condemned  the  uncharitable 
or  imclean  thought  or  intention  as  well  as  the  com- 
pleted  act :     (3)    the   definite   proclamation   of   the 

oral  tradition  is  a  pore  supentition :  it  is  largely  based  upon 
literature."  {IsrasUHuhi  und  judischs  Geschichte,  p.  317.  note).  Of 
course  I  cannot  venture  to  express  any  opinion  as  to  the  probabili- 
ties of  a  Christian  influence  upon  the  Talmud.  On  this  point  Mr. 
Montefiore  says.  "  The  religious  value  of  the  teaching  of  the  S3rnop- 
tic  Gospeb  for  the  modem  Jew  is  not  to  be  measured  by  the 
presence  or  absence  of  parallels  to  the  various  sayings  of  Jeans 
in  the  later  Rabbinical  literature.  I  do  not  merely  refer  to  the 
fact  that  almost  all  the  parallels  are  later  in  date.  .  .  .  When 
Talmud  and  Gospels  are  compared,  the  originahty  is  almost  always 
on  the  side  of  the  Gospels  "  {Syn.  Gospels,  p.  civ.)  WelLhaosen's 
*'  all  "  is  probably  an  exaggeration. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ      95 

principle  that  the  neighbour  to  whom  the  Jew  owed 
duties  was  not  merely  his  fellow-countrymen,  but  his 
fellow-man.  Let  me  dwell  upon  each  of  these  great 
moral  revolutions  in  detail. 

(i)  The  question  of  the  attitude  of  our  Lord  towards 
the  Jewish  Law  has  been  a  matter  of  much  dispute. 
Here  I  must  content  myself  with  suggesting  conclu- 
sions without  much  discussion  or  argument.  In  the 
first  place  our  Lord  clearly  drew  a  sharp  distinction 
between  the  injunctions  contained  in  the  books  at- 
tributed to  Moses  and  the  Pharisaic  amplifications  of 
them.  Sharing  the  ordinary  ideas  of  His  contem- 
poraries about  the  authorship  and  origin  of  these 
books,  He  acknowledged  their  divine  authority.  To 
the  Pharisaic  glosses  He  attached  no  authority  what- 
ever. Consequently  He  defended  His  disciples  against 
charges  of  Sabbath-breaking  either  by  walking  through 
the  cornfields  or  by  rubbing  the  ears  of  corn ;  He 
healed  on  the  Sabbath  and  laid  down  the  far-reaching 
principles,  *'  It  is  lawful  to  do  good  on  the  Sabbath- 
day"  ^  and  *'  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man  and  not 
man  for  the  Sabbath.'' ^  He  had  no  scruples  about 
eating  with  unwashen  hands.  He  took  no  account  of 
the  fasts  which  the  Pharisees  had  invented  in  addition 
to  the  Day  of  Atonement,  the  only  day  of  fasting 
prescribed  by  the  Law.     He  threw  to  the  winds  all 

^  Matt.  xii.  12.  4^ 

•  Mark  ii.  27.     In  the  saying  "  The  Son  of  man  is  Lord  also 

of  the  Sabbath"  it  is   possible   that  the  '*  Son  of  man  "= man, 

humanity. 


96  Conscience  and  Christ 

the  Immoral  Casuistry  by  which  the  Scribes  not  merely 
added  to  the  burden  of  the  Law,  but  violated  its  most 
essential  commands,  such  as  the  duty  of  honouring . 
father  and  mother  and  of  not  taking  God's  name  in 
vain.  Secondly,  within  the  Law  itself  He  practi- 
cally, if  not  avowedly,  distinguished  between  the 
ethical  parts  of  it  and  merely  ritual  or  ceremonial 
regulations.  He  did  not  perhaps  assert  in  so  many 
words  that  He  had  come  not  to  destroy  the  Law  and 
the  prophets,  but  to  fulfil  them,  or  that  not  one  jot 
or  one  tittle  should  pass  from  the  Law.^  These  sayings 
may  belong  to  the  attempt  of  the  first  Evangelist 
or  of  his  source  to  extract  out  of  isolated  sayings  of 
Jesus  a  systematic  exposition  of  the  Master's  attitude 
towards  the  Law ;  but  in  any  case  the  first  of  them 
does  represent  a  true  statement  of  what  that  attitude 
was,  if  (with  the  Evangehst)  we  mean  by  this  "  ful- 
filling "  that  He  had  come  to  bring  out  the  true, 
ethical  meaning  of  the  Law  and  the  prophets,  to 
complete  what  was  lacking  in  them,  to  develope  their 
true  principles  and  push  them  to  their  logical  conse- 

*  Matt.  V.  17,  18  ;  Luke  xvi.  17.  So  Loisy  who  suggests  that 
St.  Paul  is  the  man  destined  by  Judso-Christian  opinion  to  be  "  least 
in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven."  The  second  of  these  sayings,  but  not 
the  first,  certainly  belongs  to  Q.  The  whole  of  the  preface  to 
the  enunciation  of  the  new  law  in  St.  Matthew  (v.  17-19  or  perhaps 
17-20)  is  of  rather  doubtful  genuineness.  If  on  the  strength  of  its 
appearing  in  Luke  xvi.  17  we  accept  the  saying  about  not  one  jot 
or  tittle  paiwing  from  the  Law,  it  most  have  been  said  in  a  different 
and  irrecoverable  oootext.  II  Jesus  said  it.  He  must  have  done  so 
at  a  period  when  His  antagonism  to  Jewish  legalism  was  not  fully 
developed.    The  verse  is  omitted  by  the  Sinaitic-Syriac  version. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ      97 

quences.  And,  when  He  proceeds  to  give  illustrations 
of  what  He  means  by  this  fulfilment,  or  completion,  of 
the  law,  it  is  to  the  laws  against  adultery,  against 
murder,  against  false  swearing,  and  the  like  that  He 
applies  the  principle.  There  is  not  a  word  about  the 
ceremonial  law.  The  first  at  least  of  our  Evangelists^ 
is  anxious  to  make  the  most  of  all  utterances  which 
imply  profound  respect  for  the  Law  :  yet  we  nowhere 
find  even  the  first  Gospel  representing  our  Lord  as 
insisting  upon  the  importance  of  sacrifice,  of  avoiding 
ceremonial  pollution,  of  abstaining  from  unclean 
meats,  or  upon  the  efficacy  of  the  Day  of  Atonement 
and  its  ceremonies,  which  was  a  prominent  element 
in  the  teaching  of  many  Rabbis.  The  strongest 
recognitions  of  the  obligation  for  Jews  of  complying 
with  the  ritual  requirements  of  the  Mosaic  Law  are 
found  only  in  that  most  Judaic  of  the  Gospels,  and 
must  be  looked  upon  with  some  suspicion.  The  in- 
junction to  the  leper  to  show  himself  to  the  Priest 
and  offer  the  gift  that  Moses  commanded  is,  indeed, 
found  in  all  three  Synoptists.  ^  Two  Gospels  give  the  in- 
junction which  follows  our  Lord's  scathing  words  about 
the  tithing  of  mint  and  anyse  and  cummin,  while  the 
weightier  matters  of  the  Law  were  neglected  :  **  These 
ye  ought  to  have  done,  and  not  to  have  left  the  other 

^  Or  one  of  the  sources  which  he  used.  The  last  Edition  of  the 
first  Gospel  was  certainly  universalistic,  but  he  must  have  used  a 
source — possibly  some  later  edition  of  Q — which  was  more  de- 
cidedly Jewish-Christian.  Some  have  suggested  that  the  original 
Q  was  a  work  of  this  character. 

*  Matt.  viii.  4  ;   Mark  i.  44  ;   Luke  v.  14. 
H 


98  Conscience  and  Christ 

undone,"*  but  they  are  omitted  in  St.  Luke  by  the 
Codex  Bezae  (D),  and  may  well  have  come  in  from 
Matthew.  The  strongest  of  all  is  the  explicit  statement 
— peculiar  to  the  first  Gospel — *'  The  Scribes  and  the 
Pharisees  sit  on  Moses'  seat :  all  things  therefore  what- 
soever they  bid  you,  these  do  and  observe :  but  do  not  ye 
after  their  works,  for  they  say  and  do  not.  Yea,  they 
bind  heavy  burdens,  and  grievous  to  be  borne,  and  lay 
them  on  men's  shoulders :  but  they  themselves  will 
not  move  them  with  their  finger."*  Taken  literally 
these  words  seem  inconsistent  with  our  Lord's  actual 
teaching  and  practice  on  other  occasions :  He  cer- 
tainly did  refuse  to  observe,  or  enjoin  the  observance 
of,  the  Sabbath  in  the  Pharisaic  way,  or  the  washing 
of  hands,  and  many  other  things  which  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  bade  men  do.  The  absence  of  such 
words  in  Luke  suggests  that  they  are  a  gloss  of  the 
Evangelist  or  some  later  redactor,  a  traditional 
amplification  of  the  Master's  actual  words.  But,  even 
if  they  are  genuine,  the  significance  of  what  Jesus 
does  not  say  in  Matthew — the  total  absence  of  any 
insistence  upon  specific  ceremonial  rules — is  none  the 
less  marked. 

To  some  small  extent  our  interpretation  of  Christ's 
attitude  towards  the  Law  may  be  affected  by  our 
estimate  of  the  relative  trustworthiness  of  the  different 
Evangelists   in   such   passages    as    these — upon    the 

*  Biatt.  zxiii.  23  ;  Luke  xi.  42 

*  Matt,  xxiii.  2,  3. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ      99 

question  whether  we  look  upon  the  more  legaUstic 
passages  of  Matthew  as  Judaistic  additions  or  upon 
the  omission  of  such  sayings  in  Luke  as  universalizing 
excisions.  To  my  own  mind  the  evidence  in  most 
cases  favours  the  former  alternative.  But,  however 
we  decide  such  questions,  there  is  not  much  room  for 
serious  doubt  on  His  general  position.  We  are  not 
entitled  to  say  that  Christ  ever  actually  encouraged 
the  non-observance  of  precepts  obviously  and  fairly 
deducible  from  the  commands  of  Scripture :  or  that  He 
ever  explicitly  drew  a  distinction  between  ceremonial 
precepts  which  were  not,  and  moral  precepts  which 
were,  of  eternal  obligation.  He  assumed  as  a  matter 
of  course  that  Jews  would  go  on  observing  their 
national  law,  and  He  probably  never  doubted  that  in 
some  sense  the  law  of  Moses  was  of  divine  origin.  At 
the  same  time  it  is  to  be  observed  that  He  never 
sanctions  extreme  views  of  bibhcal  inspiration.  It  is 
to  Moses,  not  directly  to  God,  that  He  refers  the  in- 
junctions of  the  Pentateuch  :  He  says  vaguely,  "  it 
was  said  to  the  men  of  old  time,'*  not  "  God  said.*' 
He  did  not  doubt  that  Moses  was  divinely  commis- 
sioned, or  that  the  Scriptures  were  divinely  inspired ; 
but  that  is  a  different  thing  from  laying  it  down  that 
the  whole  Old  Testament  was  written  by  the  finger  of 
God.  When  the  sons  of  thunder,  in  accordance  with 
Old  Testament  precedent,  desired  to  call  down  fire 
from  heaven  to  consume  the  Samaritan  village  which 
rejected    their    Master,    no    reverence    for    the    Old 


100  Conscience  and  Christ 

Testament    or    for    Elias    prevented    His    rebuking 
them.^ 

The  truth  seems  to  be  that  by  a  sort  of  instinct  of 
spiritual  insight  the  mind  of  Jesus  fastened  upon  the 
spiritual  and  ethical  import  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
and  ignored  all  the  rest.  In  principle  the  negative 
side  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  about  the  Law  is  already 
contained  in  the  teaching  of  Christ.  Whenever  the 
Law  stood  in  the  way  of  a  higher  law,  He  disregarded 
it  boldly.  He  healed  on  the  Sabbath,*  which  was 
certainly  "  work  "  of  a  kind,  defended  His  disciples 
for  plucking  the  ears  of  com  and  rubbing  them  in  their 
hands,  and  laid  down  a  principle  which  goes  fiuther 
than  St.  Paul  went  by  saying  that,  even  in  its  appUca- 
tion  to  Jews,  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man  and  not 
man  for  the  Sabbath.'  Most  important  of  all  is  the 
explicit  depreciation  of  the  whole  system  of  clean 
and  unclean  meats  which  was  the  main  foundation 

*  Luke  ix.  55.  The  words  "  As  Elias  did  "  are  omitted  ia  the 
best  MSS.  The  words  "  Ye  know  not  what  spirit  ye  are  of  "  (though 
omitted  in  some  MSS.)  are  better  attested  than  the  words  which 
follow :  "  For  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  destroy  men's  lives  but  to 
save  them." 

*  Mark  iii.  1-6  ;  Matt.  xii.  9-14  ;  Luke  vi.  6-1 1.  It  is  impor- 
tant to  remember  that  this  event  marks  the  beginning  of  the 
designs  upon  our  Lord's  life  by  Herod  Antipas  and  the  representa- 
tives of  official  Religion.    Cf.  also  Luke  xiv.  1-6. 

*  Mark  ii.  23-28  ;  Matt.  xii.  i-3;  Luke  vi.  1-5.  There  was  a 
imbbinic  saying,  "  The  Sabbath  is  yours,  and  you  are  not  for  the 
Sabbath  "  (quoted  by  Holtzmann  and  Loisy).  In  Luke  vi.  5  D 
adds  the  well-known  story  that  the  Lord  said  to  a  man  picking  sticks 
on  the  Sabbath,  "  Man.  if  thou  knowest  what  thou  doest.  blessed 
art  thou  ;  but  if  thou  knowest  not,  thou  art  accursed  and  a  trans- 
gressor of  the  law." 


The  Ethical  Teaching  vf  Jtsus  Chrhi     ibi 

of  that  social  barrier  between  Jew  and  Gentile  even- 
tually broken  down  by  the  influence  of  St.  Paul  and 
the  development  of  a  Catholic  Church.  "  Perceive 
ye  not  that  whatsoever  from  without  goeth  into  the 
man,  it  cannot  defile  him.  .  .  .  That  which  proceedeth 
out  of  the  man,  that  defileth  the  man.  For  from 
within,  out  of  the  heart  of  men  evil  thoughts  proceed, 
fornications,  thefts,  murders,  adulteries,  covetings, 
wickednesses,  deceit,  lasciviousness,  an  evil  eye,  railing, 
pride,  foolishness :  all  these  evil  things  proceed  from 
within,  and  defile  the  man.''^  St.  Mark  is  assuredly 
right  in  adding  by  way  of  comment  that  in  these 
words  our  Lord  was  virtually  repealing  the  whole 
system :  "  this  He  said  making  all  meats  clean." 
What  our  Lord  would  have  actually  advised  if  one 
of  His  disciples  had  proposed  to  eat  unclean  meats,  we 
cannot  say  :  but  He  denied  altogether  the  absolute 
moral  validity  of  the  command  to  abstain  from  them. 
In  principle  that  carries  with  it  the  abrogation  of  the 
whole  ceremonial  law  as  a  matter  of  eternal,  intrinsic 
obligation  or  divine  command. 

{2)  Our  Lord  deepened,  transcended,  spiritualized 
the  strictly  moral  requirements  of  the  Law. 

At  the  present  day  the  principle  that  Morality  lies 

^  Mark  vii.  iS-22  ;  Matt.  xv.  18-20.  The  explanation  contained 
in  Matt.  xv.  15-20,  and  in  a  more  condensed  form  in  Mark,  is  looked 
upon  with  suspicion  by  some  critics,  but  that  gives  us  no  reason  to 
doubt  the  saying  itself  (Matt.  xv.  11).  And  it  is  supported  by  the 
general  tone  of  Christ's  teaching.  Loisy  may  well  remark : 
"  L'^mancipation  de  Paul,  beaucoup  plus  apparent,  n'etait  pas 
plus  reelle  "  {Evan.  Syn.  I,  p.  569). 


'<(J2  Conscience  and  Christ 

in  the  intention,  that  a  man  who  intends  to  kill  is  no 
less  guilty  because  a  pistol  missed  fire,  while  the 
accidental  homicide  is  not  guilty  at  all,  seems  so 
obviously  reasonable  that  we  are  inclined  to  forget 
that  this  was  not  always  recognized.  Primitive  Law 
and  primitive  Morality  alike  dealt  almost  entirely 
with  acts,  very  little  with  motives  ;  they  knew  nothing 
of  the  guilt  of  imfulfilled  intention  or  even  of  the 
absolute  innocence  of  involuntary  blood-shedding.* 
As  Morality  advanced,  people  came  no  doubt  to 
realize  more  completely  the  importance  of  motive 
and  intention ;  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether  by 
the  wisest  of  the  ancients  the  principle  was  ever 
understood  with  the  fullness  and  definiteness  and 
distinctness  which  it  attained  in  the  moral  conscious- 
ness of  Him  of  whose  deeper  thoughts  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  contains  the  most  concentrated  dis- 
closure. Matthew  Arnold  was  right  in  making  the 
'*  inwardness  "  of  true  Morality  one  at  least  of  the 
characteristic  thoughts  of  Jesus.* 

We  have  seen  reason  to  believe  that,  if  the  first 
Evangelist  has  actually  formulated  for  himself  the 
principle  that  Jesus  came  to  fulfil  (TrXripwrai)  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets,  i.e.  to  develope  the  eternal 

^  The  Jewish  law  protected  the  accidental  homicide,  but  only  if 
he  could  reach  a  dty  of  refuge  (Deut.  xix.   Cf.  Numbers  xxxv.  22). 

*  Aristotle  makes  the  value  of  morality  consist  chiefly  in  the 
wpoaipeait,  but  rfKua  dprr^  implies  both  intention  and  act ;  and 
he  is  wholly  incapable  of  conceiving  that  a  man  may  be  liberal  who 
has  little  or  nothing  to  give.  The  saying  of  the  widow's  mite  is 
quite  beyond  his  ken. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ    103 

principles  implied  but  not  adequately  expressed  in 
the  Mosaic  Law,  he  had  a  right  conception  of  the 
Master's  actual  attitude  towards  that  Law.  The 
old  Law  dealt  only  with  acts :  the  new  righteousness 
required  a  love  of  goodness,  a  love  of  one's  neighbour, 
a  passionate  desire  to  fulfil  the  will  of  God  in  the 
inmost  depths  of  the  heart.  That  principle  is  illus- 
trated by  a  succession  of  detailed  applications.  The 
old  Law  had  forbidden  murder  :  the  new  Law  forbade 
maUcious  thoughts  or  evil  intentions.  The  angry 
thought,  prevented  from  taking  effect  by  a  prudential 
regard  for  consequences,  may  be  as  bad  as  murder. 
So  with  regard  to  the  seventh  Commandment,  the  old 
Law  had  forbidden  adultery,  which  later  Jewish 
interpretation  had  made  to  include  fornication.  To 
Christ  the  lascivious  thought  was  evil  in  itself ;  the 
lascivious  thought  prevented  from  turning  into  act 
by  fear  of  vengeance  or  legal  penalty  was  as  bad  as 
adultery.  The  essential  principle  of  the  seventh 
Commandment  was  that  man  was  intended  for  perma- 
nent union  with  one  woman.  Hence  Jesus  forbade 
the  polygamy  which  the  letter  of  the  Law  allowed : 
though  polygamy  was  by  this  time  so  uncommon 
among  religious  Jews  that  the  prohibition  of  it  would 
not,  it  is  probable,  have  struck  His  hearers  as  specially 
startling.  Not  so  His  peremptory  prohibition  of 
Divorce.  The  Jewish  Law  allowed  the  husband  to 
divorce  his  wife  for  mere  disinclination,  and  divorce, 
of  course,  to  a  Jew  carried  with  it  liberty  to  marry 


104  Conscience  and  Christ 

again.  Some  of  the  later  Jewish  teachers  had  dis- 
couraged divorce,^  but  none  of  them  had  positively 
condemned  it.  Our  Lord  peremptorily  forbade  divorce 
to  either  party,  or  the  remarriage  of  a  divorced  per- 
son. In  the  text  of  Matthew  (v.  32  ;  xix.  9)  an  excep- 
tion is  added,  **  except  for  fornication."*  The  absence 
of  this  exception  from  the  text  of  Mark  and  Luke* 
makes  it  almost  certain  that  it  was  absent  from  the 
common  source  and  from  the  original  utterance  of 
Jesus.  It  is  not  so  certain  that  the  exception  would 
have  been  repudiated  by  Jesus  Himself.  He  was 
laying  down  principles.  The  true  principle  was 
permanent  monogamous  marriage.  In  a  society  living 
up  to  Christ's  principle  there  would  be  no  divorce  for 
adultery  because  there  would  be  no  adultery.  What 
was  to  be  done  when  the  true  ideal  of  marriage  was 
violated  by  one  of  the  parties,  Jesus  (so  far  as  we 
know)  did  not  consider.  If  we  have  no  right  to  say 
positively  that  He  would  have  recognized  the  excep- 
tion which  the  Church  of  the  Evangelist's  day — the 
Judaeo-Christian  Church  of  the  end  of  the  first  cen- 
tury— evidently  did  recognize,  we  may  at  least  be 
sure  that  it  was  divorce  for  lesser  causes  than  this, 
divorce  at  the  caprice  of  the  husband,  that  he  had 
primarily  in  view.    This,  it  must  be  remembered,  was 

>  '*  I  hate  putting  away,  saith  the  Lord  "  (Mai.  ii.  16). 

*  Biattbew  also  adds  to  the  question.  "  for  every  caose  "  (xix.  3). 
These  words  may  be  genuine ;  at  all  events  they  represent  the  real 
question  at  issue.  They  strongly  support  the  view  taken  in  the 
text. 

*  Mark  x.  1 1 ;  Luke  zvi.  t8.    CL  i  Cor.  vii.  10,  39. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ     io5 

the  sole  question  at  issue  between  the  rival  Jewish 
Schools — the  question  about  which  the  new  Teacher 
was  invited  to  adjudicate.  Hillel  allowed  divorce  for 
many  causes  besides  adultery :  Shammai  allowed  it 
for  adultery  alone.  Both  parties  admitted  that 
divorce  was  lawful  in  the  case  of  adultery.  What 
our  Lord  meant,  in  all  probability,  was  to  pronounce 
in  favour  of  Shammai.  ^ 

In  any  case  the  actual  attitude  of  Roman  Catholicism 
and  High  Anglicanism  on  this  subject  is  indefensible. 
Orthodoxy  cannot  refuse  to  admit  the  authority  of  the 
actual  text  of  any  one  Gospel,  and  the  text  of  Matthew 
distinctly  allows  the  divorce  a  vinculo  matrimonii. 
We  cannot  condemn  the  practice  of  half  Christendom 
on  the  strength  of  what  is  after  all  only  a  con- 
jectural, and  not  absolutely  certain,  emendation  of 
our  Lord's  recorded  utterance.  *  Moreover,  if  the  letter 

^  This  is  the  interpretation  put  upon  the  passage  by  Mr.  Monte- 
fiore  (I,  240).  It  is  often  assumed  that  the  words  which  follow  in 
Mark  x.  12  can  hardly  be  part  of  the  original  saying.  Divorce  was 
not  allowed  to  women  by  Jewish  law  in  any  case,  though  there  had 
been  cases  of  high-born  Jewish  women  leaving  their  husbands  and 
marrying  another,  e.g.  that  of  Herodias.  Prof.  Burkitt  {The 
Gospel  History  and  its  Transmission,  p.  100)  has  made  the  interesting 
suggestion  that  this  was  the  case  which  our  Lord  had  in  view.  He 
was  carrying  on  the  protest  of  the  Baptist  against  this  flagrant 
case  of  immorality.  Possibly  Prof.  Burkitt  is  right.  However  the 
matter  is  decided,  we  have  another  illustration  of  the  impossibility 
of  basing  modern  morality  purely  upon  authority — even  upon  the 
authority  of  Christ.  We  simply  do  not  know  with  any  approach  to 
historical  certainty  whether  our  Lord  allowed  divorce  for  adultery 
at  all,  either  to  the  husband  only  or  to  both  parties. 

*  This  is  the  position  adopted  by  the  Bishop  of  Oxford  in  The 
Question  of  Divorce.  There  was  for  a  long  time  great  uncertainty 
in  the  attitude  of  the  Church  on  the  subject,  and  the  whole  Eastern 


lo6  Conscience  and  Christ 

of  Qirist's  teaching  is  to  be  insisted  on,  the  Western 
divorce  a  mensd  ci  thoro  is  forbidden  as  much  as  actual 
dissolution  of  marriage.  The  difficulty  which  we 
experience  in  determining  what  our  Lord  actually 
taught  on  this  matter,  impressively  illustrates  the 
absolute  impossibility  of  basing  detailed  rules  for  the 
guidance  of  modem  Ufe  upon  isolated  sayings  of 
Christ.  That  the  ideal  is  permanent  monogamous 
marriage  is  undoubtedly  the  principle  which  Jesus 
taught ;  and  that  ideal  still  appeals  to  all  the  higher 
ethical  feeling  of  our  time.  By  what  detailed  enact- 
ments the  ideal  may  be  best  promoted,  which  is  the 
less  of  two  evils  when  that  ideal  has  been  violated  and 
made  impossible,  is  a  question  which  must  be  settled 
by  the  moral  consciousness,  the  experience,  the  prac- 
tical judgement  of  the  present.  That  principle  has 
been  freely  adopted  by  the  Christian  Church  in  other 
cases.  Oiu"  Lord's  prohibition  of  Divorce,  even  if  the 
exception  is  removed,  is  not  more  peremptory,  as  far 
as  the  letter  goes,  than  His  prohibition  of  oaths,  of 
self-defence,  or  of  going  to  law. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  St.  Paul,  in  spite  of  his 
strong  view  of  the  permanence  of  marriage,  did  not 
feel  forbidden  by  his  Master's  words  to  permit  divorce 
in  one  case  not  expressly  mentioned  by  Him — in  the 

Church  still  allows  divorce  for  adultery  and  the  re-marriage  of  the 
innocent  party,  as  do  the  Protestant  Churches  of  the  Continent.  I 
cannot  understand  how  Mr.  Selwyn  can  say  (The  Teaching  of  Christ, 
p.  1 06)  that  "  the  Church  has  always  interpreted  our  Lord's  teach- 
ing about  divorce  as  though  this  exception  did  not  exist." 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ     107 

case  of  a  heathen  partner  anxious  to  repudiate  a 
newly  converted  Christian  spouse  :  and  in  this  case 
even  the  strict  Western  Church  allows  the  repudiated 
Christian  to  re-marry. 

The  same  principle  is  then  applied  to  the  case  of 
swearing.  Our  Lord  brushes  aside  the  casuistical 
distinctions  between  oaths  which  were  more  binding 
and  oaths  which  were  less  binding,  or  not  binding  at 
all.  Among  those  who  wished  to  follow  the  ideal 
law  of  God,  yea  would  be  yea,  and  nay  nay.  The 
rule  of  Veracity  would  be  observed  habitually  :  lying 
would  be  avoided  as  much  as  perjury.  Our  Lord  was 
here  probably  thinking  not  so  much  either  of  judicial 
oaths  or  of  cursing  and  swearing  in  ordinary  conversa- 
tion (though  He  would,  of  course,  have  condemned 
the  irreverent  appeal  to  the  name  of  God),  as  of  at- 
tempts to  cheat  one's  neighbour  by  taking  oaths  to 
repay  a  debt,  or  the  like,  on  which  the  other  would 
rely — oaths  which  the  casuistically  learned  swearer 
secretly  knows  not  to  be  binding,  and  does  not  intend 
to  observe.^  In  the  matter  of  judicial  oaths  Christian 
States  and  Churches  have  followed  a  perfectly  sound 
principle.  Undoubtedly  in  an  ideal  society  there 
would  be  no  distinction  between  swearing  and  affirm- 
ing ;  a  man's  word  would  be  *'  as  good  as  his  oath.'* 
But  as  long  as  there  are  persons  superstitious  enough 
to  shrink  from  perjury  though  willing  to  lie,  it  is  the 
less  of  two  evils  that  formal  oaths  should  be  adminis- 

*  This  point  seems  generally  to  have  been  overlooked. 


lo8  Conscience  and  Chrisi 

tered  to  witnesses  in  Courts  of  Justice  and  on  other 
solemn  occasions. 

We  need  not  linger  on  our  Lord's  other  detailed 
applications  of  His  principle.  They  lead  up  to  the 
emphatic  enunciation  of  imiversal  undiscriminating 
love  to  one's  neighbour,  even  to  one's  enemy.  "  All 
things  therefore  whatever  ye  would  that  men  should 
do  imto  you,  even  so  do  unto  them,"  as  it  is  elsewhere 
expressed.  If  it  be  the  Evangelist  who  adds  the 
words,  "  for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets,"  he  is 
only  bringing  out  the  very  deepest  and  most  character- 
istic thought  of  his  Master.  The  law  of  God  which 
was  of  universal  obligation  was  the  law  of  imiversal 
love,  the  law  which  regards  every  other  human  being 
as  of  equal  intrinsic  importance  to  oneself,  as  equally 
entitled  to  have  his  true  good  promoted  by  every  other 
rational  being.  The  most  certain  thing  about  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  is  that  He  did  teach  this  doctrine  of 
universal  love.  Anyone  who  admits  that  He  did  so,  and 
that  He  taught  nothing  inconsistent  therewith,  and  who 
also  regards  this  teaching  as  the  fimdamental  truth  of 
Morality,  is  already  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  in  a  very  dis- 
tinctive and  definite  sense. 

(3)  The  third  great  modification  of  average  Jewish 
Morality  which  was  called  for  in  the  time  of  Jesus 
was  an  extension  of  the  meaning  which  was  to  be  given 
to  the  precept  '*  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as 
thyself."  In  putting  that  rule  side  by  side  with  the 
law  of  love  to  God  and  making  these  two  into  the  first 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ     109 

and  greatest  commandments  of  the  Law,  Jesus  was 
only  quoting  the  most  rituaUstic  and  least  spiritual 
book  among  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures — the  book 
of  Leviticus.  The  two  great  deficiencies  in  the  applica- 
tion of  this  law  by  its  Pharisaic  expositors  were  these. 
The  first  was  that  they  taught  much  which  was  really 
inconsistent  with  that  rule,  and  which  (as  we  have 
seen)  was  in  principle  brushed  aside  by  the  teaching 
of  Jesus.  By  the  love  of  God  it  is  probable  that  the 
author  of  Leviticus  would  have  by  no  means  understood 
simply  the  love  and  service  of  men  whose  good  God 
wills,  but  also  the  observance  of  a  host  of  ceremonial 
regulations,  some  of  which  were  thought  to  be  well- 
pleasing  to  God,  but  which  were  not  at  all  for  the 
good  of  man.  That  this  was  not  the  case  with  Jesus 
we  have  already  seen.  The  second  defect  was  that 
by  one's  neighbour  was  understood  simply — at  the 
very  most — the  Jewish  fellow-countryman.  ^  In  the 
Law  itself,  in  the  Prophets,  in  the  teaching  of  the 
Rabbis,  much  was  said  about  the  considerate  treat- 
ment of  strangers  ;  but  the  most  liberal  of  them  would 
have  shrunk  from  the  assertion  that  a  Gentile  was  in  the 
sight  of  God  as  important  as  a  Jew,  and  was  entitled  to 
the  same  treatment  at  the  hands  of  his  Jewish  brother. 
Did  the  teaching  of  Jesus  actually  affirm  this 
principle  ?  I  believe  that  we  can  confidently  assert 
that  it  did.    There  would,  indeed,  be  no  doubt  about 

^  The  very  question  of  the  Scribe  to  our  Lord  shows  that  there 
were  different  interpretations  of  it  current  at  the  time.  See 
Appendix  I  (below  p.  286). 


no  Conscience  and  Christ 

our  answer,  if  we  could  rely  with  absolute  confidence 
upon  the  genuineness  of  all  the  universalistic  sayings 
of  our  present  Synoptists — such  as  the  declaration  that 
many  shall  come  from  the  East  and  West,  and  from 
the  North  and  South  and  shall  sit  down  in  the  King- 
dom of  God.^  But  such  sayings  may  be  doubted  or 
interpreted  in  some  non-universalistic  sense.  I  think 
it  must,  indeed,  be  admitted  that  our  Lord  Himself 
considered  His  own  mission  to  be  to  His  own  people. 
"  I  am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house 
of  Israel."*  But  this  does  not  imply  that,  if  and  when  a 
Jew  was  brought  into  contact  with  a  Gentile,  he  was  not 
to  treat  him  as  a  brother,  or  that  He  would  have  had 
any  doubts  about  the  truth  that  "  in  every  nation  he 
that  feareth  God  and  worketh  righteousness  is  accept- 
able to  Him."  We  need  not  rely  upon  passages  which 
a  somewhat  over-suspicious  criticism  may  doubt. 
That  our  Lord's  teaching  was  in  principle  universalistic 
is  implied  in  the  modifications  of  current  Jewish 
Ethics  which  have  already  been  insisted  on.  The  whole 
tone  and  tenor  of  His  teaching  implied  that  a  man's 
standing  in  the  sight  of  God  did  not  depend  upon 

^  Blatt.  viii.  ii  ;  Luke  xiii.  29.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  in 
Bf&tthew  the  passage  is  certainly  universalistic,  being  addressed  to 
the  Centurion,  while  in  Luke  it  is  just  possible  to  suppose  that 
it  is  only  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  that  are  referred  to. 

*Matt.  XV.  24.  Of.  X.  6.  Luke's  omiMion,  being  accounted  for  by  his 
Universalism.  is  not  conclusive  against  the  genuineness  of  the  saying, 
and  yet  it  may  be  due  to  the  first  Evangelist's  view  of  the  Messiah's 
originai  mission.  We  cannot  rely  upon  Mark  xiii.  10,  xiv.  9,  or 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  because  these  imply  a  long  period  before  the 
Parousia. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ     iii 

descent  from  Abraham,  upon  circumcision,  upon  the 
observance  of  the  distinction  between  clean  and  un- 
clean meats,  but  upon  the  state  of  his  heart,  upon 
the  degree  of  his  love,  upon  the  extent  to  which  he 
did  the  will  of  God.  If  righteousness  was  the  sole 
condition  of  admission  to  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  it 
followed  necessarily  and  as  a  matter  of  course  that  a 
Gentile  could  enter  it.  If  Gentiles  might  become  sub- 
jects of  the  Kingdom  of  God  without  observing  the 
distinction  between  clean  and  unclean  meats,  it  was 
obvious  that  they  must  be  treated  as  brothers.  And  this 
was,  I  believe,  no  mere  implication  of  Christ's  teaching 
discovered  afterwards  by  St.  Paul  and  the  Christian 
Church.  He  could  hardly  have  failed  to  be  aware 
that  no  less  than  this  was  involved  in  it ;  though 
it  did  not  often  (no  doubt)  fall  within  the  purpose  of 
His  mission  (as  He  conceived  it)  to  dwell  much  upon 
it.  He  who  associated  so  habitually  and  so  lovingly 
with  publicans  and  sinners — lax  observers  of  the  Law 
when  they  observed  it  at  all — could  hardly  have 
regarded  Gentiles  as  less  the  children  of  God  than 
they.  In  proof  of  this  view  of  our  Lord's  teaching 
I  will  not  insist  much  on  the  exceptional  occasions 
when  He  was  brought  into  contact  with  individual 
Gentiles  —  on  His  healing  of  the  Syro-Phoenician 
woman  ^  or  His  approval  of  the  Centurion's  faith^ — 

^  The  saying  above-quoted  about  His  mission  being  to  the  house 
of  Israel  occurs  in  two  contexts,  and  this  may  suggest  doubts  as  to 
the  incident,  about  which  see  below,  p.  176. 

2  Matt.  viii.  10  ;  Luke  vii.  9. 


112  Conscience  and  Christ 

but  rather  upon  the  general  tone  and  temper  of  the 
teaching  which  finds  its  most  perfect  expression 
in  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan  (Luke  x.  30  sq.). 
The  Samaritans  were  at  least  as  much  outside  the  pale 
of  average  Pharisaic  charity  as  the  Gentiles.  A  Jewish 
teacher  who  explicitly  taught  that  a  Samaritan  might 
be  neighbour  to  a  Jew  and  spiritually  superior  to  a 
Priest  and  a  Levite,  has  parted  company  with  Jewish 
Particularism. 

If  anyone  is  disposed  to  accept  the  conjecture  that 
in  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  the  Samaritan 
has  taken  the  place  of  a  story  in  which  the  bar- 
barity of  Priest  and  Levite  is  contrasted  with  the 
humanity  of  the  simple  Israelite.*  we  may  appeal  to 
the  passage  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  upx>n  love 

^ "  As  to  the  good  Samaritan  there  is  much  reason  to  suppose 
(though  no  Christian  commentator  is  likely  to  admit  it)  that  he 
comes  from  a  verbal  alt«fmtk)Q  of  the  original  story "  {Syn. 
Gospels,  I.  p.  Ixvi.).  M.  HalAvy  has  given  plausible  reasons  for 
supposing  that  the  perBoaages  of  the  parable  were  originally 
Pri^,  Levite,  and  simple  Israehte.  and  Mr.  Montefiore  (t6..  II. 
PP-  935-7)  *^*«  accepted  his  theory.  The  grounds  are  briefly: 
(i)  the  improbability  of  a  Samaritan  travelling  between  Jeru- 
salem and  Jericho,  (2)  the  strangeness  of  the  collocation 
"  Priest,  Levite.  Samaritan."  These  grounds  (for  a  full  statement 
of  which  I  must  refer  to  Mr.  Montefiore 's  note)  do  not  seem  to  me 
very  convincing,  and  even  if  we  suppose  that  an  old  Jewish  story 
has  been  adapted  to  a  new  purpose,  I  cannot  see  why  the  adapter 
may  not  as  probably  have  been  Jesus  Himself  as  St.  Luke,  but  the 
theory  prevents  our  treating  this  piece  of  evidence  as  conclusive. 
The  parable  of  the  two  sons  is  often  regarded  as  meaning  "  Jew  and 
Gentile"  (Matt.  xxi.  28:  cf.  the  parable  of  the  Banquet),  but  those 
who  so  interpret  it  are  disposed  to  regard  it  as  an  "  ecclesiastical 
addition  "  of  Matthew.  Even  if  it  is  so,  the  attitude  of  the  Jewish 
Church  towards  Gentile  Christianity  can  hardly  be  explained  except 
by  the  inherent  universalism  of  the  Master's  teaching. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ    113 

to  enemies.  Any  Jew  who  was  disposed  to  accept 
the  traditional  rule  of  popular  Ethics,  '*  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbour  and  hate  thine  enemy/'  would 
certainly  have  extended  the  principle  to  national  as 
well  as  to  personal  enemies.  Christ  invited  His  disciples 
to  love  their  enemies  and  pray  for  those  that  despite- 
fully  used  them  *'  that  ye  may  be  sons  of  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven  :  for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise 
on  the  evil  and  the  good.*'^  A  God  who  loves  the 
bad  will  certainly  love  Gentiles,  and  if  the  followers 
of  Jesus  were  to  be  like  Him,  they  must  obviously  be 
no  less  comprehensive  in  their  philanthropy, 

I  submit  then  in  conclusion  that  in  laying  down  the 
principle  of  human  Brotherhood,  in  its  fullest  possible 
extent  and  with  a  complete  absence  of  inconsistent 
additions  and  qualifications,  our  Lord  has  laid  down 
the  fundamental  principles  of  all  true  Morality  as  it 
is  recognized  by  the  moral  consciousness  of  the  present 
day  at  its  highest.  Whether  side  by  side  with  these 
principles  there  are  other  elements  in  the  moral 
teaching  of  Christ  which  fail  to  commend  themselves 
to  the  moral  consciousness  of  to-day,  I  shall  consider 
in  my  next  lecture.  Meanwhile,  I  leave  with  you  the 
suggestion  that  the  claim  of  Christ's  religion  to  the 
position  of  a  universal  religion  rests  to  a  large  extent 

^  Matt.  V.  45  ;  Luke  vi.  35.  Matthew  concludes  with  the  in- 
junction :  "Ye  therefore  shall  be  perfect,  as  your  heavenly  Father 
is  perfect."  If  this  version  be  genuine,  we  must  suppose  the  words 
to  mean  "  all-embracing,  universal,  undiscriminating  in  your 
charity  "  rather  than  "  faultless "  or  "  sinless."  But  Li^ke's 
"  merciful  "  is  perhaps  nearer  to  the  original. 
I 


114  Conscience  and  Christ 

upon  the  fact  that  it  is  the  religion  which  has  most 
completely  and  consistently  insisted  upon  this  prin- 
ciple. How  congenial  is  that  ethical  teaching  with  the 
most  characteristic  idea  of  Christ's  teaching  on  its 
strictly  religious  side — the  Fatherhood  of  God — I 
must  here  content  myself  with  merely  pointing  out. 
The  Ethic  which  makes  the  duty  of  Universal  Love  its 
first  and  chief  commandment  necessarily  involves, 
for  a  teacher  in  whom  Religion  or  Morality  are  in- 
separably connected,  the  idea  of  a  God  who  Himself 
loves  equally  all  the  souls  whose  life  is  derived  from 
Him. 

But  before  I  conclude,  a  word  must  be  said  as  to 
the  form  in  which  the  moral  teaching  of  Christ  is 
presented  to  us.  It  is  difficult  to  reduce  that  teaching, 
as  I  have  attempted  to  do,  to  formal  propositions, 
and  then  to  point  out  its  complete  harmony  with 
the  conclusions  of  modem  Moral  Philosophy,  without 
doing  an  injustice  to  the  most  characteristic  features 
of  the  Gospel  records.  Such  an  argiunent  may  be 
suspected  of  proving  too  much.  If  all  that  can  be 
said  is  that  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  the 
teaching  of  Christ  and  that  which  may  be  found  in 
some  modem  text-book  of  Morality,  the  objection 
may  occur,  "  What  does  it  matter  what  we  teach  and 
preach — the  Gospel  or  some  modem  Education  Com- 
mittee's text-book  of  Morality,  assimiing  that  such  a 
work  does  in  some  way  teach  the  duty  of  loving  one's 
neighbour  as  oneself  ?  " 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ     115 

Fully  to  answer  the  objection  would  demand  an 
elaborate  discussion  upon  many  questions  which 
hardly  belong  to  our  immediate- subject.  I  must  be 
content  with  indicating  a  few  of  the  heads  under  which 
such  an  answer  would  fall. 

(i)  In  his  inaugural  lecture  as  Professor  of  Poetry 
at  Oxford,  Dr.  Andrew  Bradley  pointed  out  the 
inseparability  in  poetry  of  form  and  matter :  in 
poetry  we  cannot  treat  the  poet's  meaning  as  one 
thing,  and  the  poet's  language  as  a  quite  distinct  and 
separable  way  of  expressing  his  meaning.  The  same 
principle  holds  of  the  teaching  of  great  moral  teachers 
— and  pre-eminently  of  Christ.  The  impressiveness, 
convincingness,  and  efficacy  of  His  teaching  largely 
disappear  when  the  form  which  He  gave  to  it  is  taken 
away.  You  can  reduce  the  teaching  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  to  a  dry  philosophical  form,  and  its  truth 
is  unaffected  by  the  process ;  but  when  you  do  so, 
you  have  lost  the  peculiar  force  and  charm  of 
the  sayings  which  have  caused  that  discourse  to  be 
accepted  as  the  classical  summary  of  human  duty  by 
so  many  of  those  who  have  altogether  repudiated 
the  Theology  with  which  it  is  associated^.  You 
can  teach  the  forgivingness  of  God  and  the  duty  of 
forgiving  one's  brethren  without  the  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son,  the  duty  of  Humanity  without  the 
parable   of  the   Good   Samaritan,   the  value  of  the 

^  It  is  said  that  the  late  Professor  Tyndall  was  in  the  habit  of 
reading  it  through  once  a  fortnight. 


ii6  Conscience  and  Christ 

indi\idual  soul  without  the  parable  of  the  hundred 
sheep  ;  but  if  you  do  so,  you  do  not  teach  them  so  well. 
Certainly  a  Morality  might  be  Christian  Morality, 
which  was  taught  without  a  single  reference  to  the 
personaUty  of  Christ  or  to  the  words  of  the  Gospel. 
But  it  must  not  be  assiuned  that  such  a  teaching  of 
Christian  Morality  would  be  an  effective  substitute  for 
a  knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ  and  of  the  Gospel 
pages.  The  moral  supremacy  of  Christ  cannot  be 
fairly  appreciated  apart  from  the  form  in  which  His 
teaching  is  presented  to  us. 

(2)  The  value  and  impressiveness  of  any  moral 
teacher's  work  cannot  be  adequately  estimated  by 
isolated  sayings.  A  moral  ideal  is  a  connected  whole, 
and  this  whole  is  best  presented  by  the  picture  of  a 
character  and  a  Ufe.^  Even  the  ideal  considered  as 
so  much  precept  can  hardly  be  appreciated  apart  from 
the  character  of  the  teacher.  Still  less  can  the  moral 
effect  of  the  teaching  be  separated  from  the  impression 
made  by  the  teacher's  life.  The  ethical  importance  of 
Christ  and  of  the  reUgion  which  He  founded  is  based 
not  merely  upon  the  intrinsic  value  of  His  teaching, 
but  upon  the  picture  of  a  life  which  seems  to  be  in 
complete  harmony  with  that  teaching.     I  have  con- 

*  "  Jewish  Apologists  have  a  habit  of  breaking  up  the  Gospels  into 
fragments.  They  are  somewhat  inclined  to  do  the  same  with  their 
own  literature.  But  a^great  book  is  more  than  its  own  sentences 
taken  singly  or  disjointedly.  A  great  personality  is  more  than  the 
record  of  its  teaching,  and  the  teaching  is  more  than  the  bits  of  it 
taken  one  by  one.  It  must  be  viewed  as  a  whole."  Montefiore, 
Syn.  Gosftls,  \,  p.  dv. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ     117 

tended  strongly  that  we  cannot  defend  the  supremacy 
which  the  Christian  religion  claims  for  the  moral 
teaching  of  Christ  except  by  contending  that  it  actually 
satisfies  the  moral  consciousness  of  the  present.  But, 
it  must  be  recognized  that  the  full  extent  of  the  appeal 
depends  on  the  character  and  the  life  and  not  merely 
upon  isolated  sayings.  The  influence  of  a  Person  is 
stronger  than  that  of  an  idea.  This  is  a  very  impor- 
tant point  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  estimating  the  mora^ 
healthiness  of  a  religious  system  which  places  the 
teaching  of  an  historical  Person  who  lived  in  the  re- 
mote past  in  the  forefront  of  its  ethical  ideal. 

(3)  One  of  the  most  characteristic  features  of  the 
Christian  Ethic  is  the  closeness  of  the  connexion  in 
which  it  stands  to  Religion,  as  it  is  the  distinctive 
characteristic  of  Christian  Theology  that,  more  unre- 
servedly than  any  other  historical  religion,  it  exhibits 
the  complete  identification  of  Religion  and  Morality. 
There  has  necessarily  therefore  been  something  un- 
natural and  one-sided  about  an  attempt  to  exhibit 
Christian  Morality  in  isolation  from  Theology.  An 
adequate  defence  of  Christian  Ethics  would  involve  an 
attempt  to  show  that  it  is  morally  healthy  and  desir- 
able that  Ethics  should  be  taught  in  this  close  con- 
nexion with  Religion.  And  this  represents  a  new 
subject  upon  which  I  can  hardly  enter  now.^   I  believe 

^  I  have  discussed  it  pretty  fully — so  far  as  I  could  do  so  without 
entering  in  detail  into  the  special  theology  of  the  Christian  Religion 
— in  The  Theory  of  Good  and  Evil,  Bk.  Ill,  chapo.  i.  and  ii. 


Ii8  Conscience  and  Christ 

that  it  could  be  shown  that  the  idea  of  an  objective 
moral  obligation  is  not  only  consistent  with,  but 
naturally  leads  up  to  and  even  logically  demands,  if 
the  fullest  meaning  is  to  be  given  to  the  term  objectivity, 
the  beUef  that  Morality  consists  in  obedience  to  the 
will  of  a  perfectly  righteous  God.  At  the  very  least 
it  may  be  said  that  it  is  thus  interpreted  that  the  idea 
of  an  objective  duty  comes  home  most  powerfully  to 
ordinary  minds,  and  that  it  is  most  likely  to  influence 
hfe.  And  this  is  the  form  in  which  the  idea  of  an 
absolute  right  and  wrong  is  set  forth  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus.  In  His  ideal  of  life  complete  devotion  to 
the  will  of  God  is  bound  up  with  the  conviction  that 
God  is  perfectly  and  intrinsically  good,  and  conse- 
quently wills  nothing  but  the  true  and  highest  good  of 
His  creatures.  In  the  whole  range  of  Theology  there 
is  no  principle  so  important  as  this.  If  Jesus  was 
the  first  to  teach  that  principle  in  its  full  purity,  if 
He  taught  it  with  a  purity,  a  force  and  a  consistency 
to  which  no  other  Religion — uninfluenced  by  His 
teaching — affords  any  parallel,  we  have  already  dis- 
covered a  sufficient  answer — an  answer  of  enormous 
force — to  the  question  why  we  of  the  twentieth  cen- 
tury should  still  consider  ourselves  disciples  of  Christ, 
and  of  none  other  in  the  same  sense  and  to  the  same 
degree.  We  have  found  sufficient  reason  for  saying 
wth  the  disciple  of  the  fourth  Gospel :  "  Lord,  to 
whom  shall  we  go  ?  thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal 
Ufe." 


ADDITIONAL  NOTE  ON  THE  ETHICAL  TEACHING 
OF  CHRIST  IN  DETAIL 

The  central  truth  of  Christ's  Morahty  was  His  promulga- 
tion of  the  duty  of  universal  loVe.  But  the  teaching  of 
Christ  would  not  have  exercised  the  influence  that  it  has 
exercised,  it  would  not  have  constituted  the  epoch  in  the 
ethical  development  of  the  race  that  it  has  actually  consti- 
tuted, if  His  teaching  had  consisted  in  nothing  but  the  bare 
enunciation  of  the  formula  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bour as  thyself/'  Nor  would  the  merely  negative  merit  of 
excluding  inconsistent  additions  or  contradictions  of  the 
doctrine  have  been  sufficient  to  account  for  the  effects  of 
that  teaching.  Ethical  teaching  that  is  really  to  come 
home  to  men's  consciences  must  have  some  body,  some 
fullness  of  content,  some  wealth  and  forcefulness  of  illustra- 
tion :  there  must  be  more  than  a  bare  enunciation  of  formal 
principles :  the  principles  must  be  developed.  There  must 
be  concrete  deductions  and  applications.  Corollaries  and 
consequences  must  be  pointed  out.  Contradictory  and 
inconsistent  principles  must  not  merely  be  excluded  :  they 
must  be  denounced  and  exposed.  And  all  these  things  are 
pre-eminently  characteristic  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 
Nothing  is  more  remarkable  in  it  than  the  way  it  combines 
very  great  universality  in  the  enunciation  of  fundamental 
principles  with  great  concreteness  of  illustrative  detail  and 
application.  An  entirely  incorrect  impression  will  be  formed 
of  it — of  its  originaUty,  its  importance  and  its  distinctive- 
ness— ^if  it   is  supposed  to   consist   in   nothing  but  the 

119 


120  Conscience  and  Christ 

enunciation  of  the  abstract  law  of  universal  Benevolence 
in  a  way  that  will  commend  itself  to  philosophers 
anxious  to  discover  the  fundamental  principle  of  all 
Morality.  It  does  enunciate  that  law  with  more  clearness 
and  consistency  than  had  ever  been  done  before :  but 
there  is  much  in  it  besides.  And  therefore  it  is  important 
that  we  should  try  to  enumerate  and  sununarize  the 
leading  features  of  Christ's  ethical  teaching  in  somewhat 
greater  detail  than  has  been  possible  in  the  preceding 
lecture.  Our  limits  demand  that  the  siunmary  should  be 
very  brief,  and  that  httle  shall  be  attempted  in  the  way  of 
explaining  or  vindicating  the  teaching  or  applying  it  to 
modem  conditions.  Such  a  reply  to  objections  as  is 
possible  will  be  reserved  for  the  next  lecture. 

(i)  Love  to  enemies.  The  principle  of  love  to  enemies 
is  so  absolutely  involved  in  the  principle  of  love  to 
Humanity  in  general  that  it  may  be  treated  as  simply  a 
reassertion  of  the  principle  itself.  If  Humanity  as  such 
is  to  be  loved,  if  its  good  is  to  be  promoted,  if  every  indi- 
vidual human  being  possesses  an  intrinsic  worth,  that 
principle  cannot  cease  to  be  true  because  the  man  is  an 
enemy.  That  does  not  imply  that  there  is  not  much  in 
some  men  which  may  properly  be  hated  as  Jesus  hated 
the  hypocrisy  of  some  Pharisees  and  the  covetousness  of 
others.  Such  men  are  to  be  loved  because  they  are  capable 
of  better  things.  The  enunciation  of  this  principle  holds 
a  prominent  place  in  the  sermon  on  the  Mount.* 

(2)  Forgiveness  of  injuries.  The  duty  of  forgiveness  is 
another  implication  of  the  same  principle.  This  was  an 
extremely  characteristic  feature  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus : 
"  Whensoever  ye  stand  praying,  forgive,  if  ye  have  aught 
against  anyone ;  that  your  Father  also  which  is  in  heaven 

*  liatt.  V.  43-48 ;   Luke  vi.  27-35. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ    121 

may  forgive  you  your  trespasses/'^  "  Leave  there  thy  gift 
before  the  altar,  and  go  thy  way :  first  be  reconciled  to 
thy  brother  and  then  come  and  offer  thy  gift."^  "  If 
thy  brother  sin,  rebuke  him ;  and  if  he  repent,  forgive 
him.  And  if  he  sin  against  thee  seven  times  in  the  day, 
and  seven  times  turn  again  to  thee,  saying,  I  repent, 
thou  shalt  forgive  him/'^  Xhe  principle  is  asserted  even 
in  the  shorter  version  of  the  prayer  which  our  Lord 
is  said  to  have  bequeathed  to  His  disciples.  It  is  illus- 
trated by  the  attitude  of  Jesus  to  the  adulterous  woman 
where  it  is  carried  to  the  point  of  actual  disobedience 
to  the  letter  of  the  Mosaic  law,  providing  that  such 
should  be  stoned — a  law  which  it  is  doubtful  whether 
later  Judaism  ever  enforced  even  when  it  possessed  the 
political  power  to  enforce  it.  It  has  been  enshrined  for 
ever  in  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son.*  Primarily  that 
parable  was  intended  no  doubt  to  teach  the  forgiving- 
ness  of  God,  but  in  Christ's  teaching  the  divine  forgiveness 
and  the  duty  of  human  forgiveness  were  indissolubly 
associated.     It  is  right  to  add  that  in  His  insistence  on 

^  Mark  xi.  25. 

*  Matt.  V.  24. 

^  Luke  xvii.  3,  4 ;  Matt,  xviii.  21,  22,  where  it  is  further 
iUustrated  by  the  parable  of  the  unmerciful  servant  {ih.  23-35). 
Luke's  version  is  simpler  than  Matthew's  more  elaborate  ques- 
tion and  answer  with  the  more  emphatic  "  until  seventy  times 
seven." 

*  We  need  not  suppose  that  either  our  Lord  or  the  Evangelist 
meant  the  Prodigal  Son  to  be  a  type  of  the  Gentile  world,  though 
the  principle  of  the  parable  undoubtedly  carries  with  it  in  germ 
the  justification  of  St.  Paul's  mission  to  the  Gentiles.  The  latter 
portion  of  the  parable — about  the  jealousy  of  the  elder  brother — 
may  more  reasonably  be  treated  as  a  later  attempt  to  vindicate 
Gentile  Christians  against  Jews  or  Judaizing  Christians  :  but  there 
is  no  necessity  for  the  supposition.  The  parable  fits  the  case  simply 
because  it  asserts  the  eternal  principle  upon  which  the  mission  to 
the  Gentiles  was  founded  (Luke  xv.  11-32). 


122  Conscience  and  Christ 

forgiveness  our  Lord  was  only  pressing  a  point  very 
familiar  to  the  highest  rabbinical  morality  of  Christ's  day, 
though  doubtless  there  were  some  things  in  that  teaching 
— as  in  much  later  Christian  teaching — which  were  quite 
inconsistent  with  it. 

(3)  Self -sacrifice,  Jesus  insisted  much  upon  the  import- 
ance of  self-sacrifice.  It  is  obvious  that,  if  we  are  really  to 
do  what  is  best  for  our  neighbours  and  not  for  ourselves 
alone,  this  must  involve — in  the  actual  conditions  of  any 
human  society — much  sacrifice  of  self.  But  the  necessity 
has  not  always  been  recognized — even  in  theory.  Jesus 
pushed  His  ioaistence  upon  it  to  the  point  of  maldng  it  the 
characteristic  note  of  disdpleship  to  Himself  —  the 
characteristic  requirement  for  admission  to  the  Kingdom. 
This  principle  was  so  fully  grasped  by  the  very  earliest 
disdpks  that  it  is  difficult  to  say  which  of  the  sayings 
attributed  to  Jesus  represents  the  eailiest  form  of  His 
teaching.  It  may  well  be  thought  that  the  saying  about 
taking  up  the  Cross  and  following  Him  was  formulated 
by  those  who  knew  by  what  form  of  death  He  had  died, 
even  if  we  suppose  that  His  anticipations  of  a  violent  death 
had  amoimted  to  inward  certainty.  This  portion  of  the 
saying  is  probably  a  traditional  expansion  in  the  light  of 
subsequent  events,  though  it  is  barely  possible  that  the 
cross  may  have  become  the  recognized  phrase  for  a  shame- 
ful death  before  it  became  the  consecrated  symbol  of  self- 
sacrifice  through  the  death  of  Christ.*  But  the  rest  of  the 
famous  sa>ing  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt, "  If  any  man 
would  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself."  -    So  again, 

^  See  pasBagee  irom  classical  and  rabbinic  literature  quoted  by 
ArchdesooQ  Allen  on  Matt.  x.  38.  Luke  gives  the  saying  a  meta- 
phorical applicatkn  to  ordinary  life  by  adding  the  word  "  daily  " 
(«.  23). 

*  Mark  viii.  34  ;   Matt.  xvi.  24-26. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ     123 

"  Whosoever  shall  seek  to  gain  his  life  shall  lose  it,  but 
whosoever  shall  lose  his  hfe  shall  preserve  it/'^ 

On  this  subject  I  will  quote  the  words  of  Mr.  Montefiore, 
who  has  so  nobly  resisted  the  temptation — necessarily 
strong  to  a  Jewish  interpreter — to  minimize  the  originality 
of  Jesus.  ''  Then  come  the  two  simple  Greek  words 
aTrapv-qa-da-Oo)  kavTov,  '  let  him  deny  himself.*  Here  again  we 
have  what  is  practically  a  new  conception.  Self-denial  was 
not  unknown  before  Christ ;  but  the  clear  conception  of 
it  and  the  ideal  which  it  suggests  were,  I  think,  new,^  and 
they  in  their  turn  have  exercised  an  immense  influence 
upon  men's  thoughts,  aspirations  and  actions.  More 
restricted,  but  not  less  intense,  has  been  the  effect  of  the 
next  words :  *  let  him  take  up  his  cross.'  The  true 
follower  of  the  Master,  in  proportion  to  the  perfection  of 
his  discipleship,  must  endure  and  renounce,  suffer  and 
die  "  (The  Synoptic  Gospels,  I,  211). 

(4)  The  Danger  of  Riches.  The  particular  kind  of  self- 
sacrifice  to  which  Jesus  called  His  first  disciples  was 
determined  by  the  needs  of  His  mission.  The  hardships 
imposed  upon  His  disciples  were  especially  those  involved 
in  preaching  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven — the  more  so  as  it 
eventually  became  clear  to  Him  that  in  all  probability  the 
accomplishment  of  that  mission  would  involve  death  for 
Himself,  and  imminent  peril  of  death  for  His  immediate 
followers.  On  those  whom  He  called  to  this  work  of 
preaching  He  laid  the  specific  requirement  that  they  should 
abandon — at  least  for  the  time — their  homes  and  occupa- 

^  Luke  xvii.  33.  It  may  be  that  the  primary  meaning  of  gain- 
ing the  soul  or  the  life  is  "  to  be  saved  at  the  Messianic  Judgement "  ; 
but  none  the  less  the  ethical  principle  is  laid  down  that  self-sacrifice 
is  demanded  for  entrance  to  the  Kingdom.  As  to  our  Lord's 
teaching  about  reward,  see  below,  -p.  2go  sq. 

*  The  Buddhistic  ideal  of  Self-renunciation  was  different,  see 
below  (p.  266). 


124  Conscience  and  Christ 

tions  and  lead  the  life  of  itinerant  missionaries.*  Some 
who  were  rich  He  advised  that  they  should  sell  all  they 
had  and  give  to  the  poor.*  His  teaching  was  full  of  the 
dangers  of  riches.  Luke's  version  of  the  Beatitude. 
"  Blessed  are  ye  poor,"  is  probably  nearer  the  original 
idea  than  Matthew's  *'  poor  in  spirit,"*  though  we  are  told 
that  the  Aramaic  word  will  cover  both  meanings — "  poor  " 
and  "  poor  in  spirit."  "  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go 
through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter 
into  the  Kingdom  of  God."*  That  is  a  saying  which,  just 
because  of  its  paradoxical  character,  is  among  those  least 
likely  to  have  been  invented,  whatever  we  may  think  of 
the  attenuated  explanation  in  Matthew — "  how  hardly 
shaD  they  who  trust  in  riches."  The  principle  is  strikingly 
illustrated  by  the  parables  of  the  rich  fool  and  of  Dives 
and  Lazarus.^  The  difficulties  involved  in  these  passages 
I  shall  consider  in  the  next  lecture. 

(S)  Humility.  Closely  connected  with  the  inculcation 
of  self-sacrifice  is  the  insistence  on  Humility.*  The  duty 
of  Humihty — properly  understood — is  indeed  only  an 
appUcation  of  the  doctrine  of  Love.  In  Aristotle's  picture 
of  the  "  high-souled  man  "  the  feature  which  revolts  us  is 
not  that  "  he  thinks  much  of  himself  being  worthy," 
though  Jesus  might  have  suggested  the  doubt  whether  he 
\  altogether  so  worthy  as  he  thought  himself,  but  rather 


*  Matt.  X.  I -1 5.  It  is  probable  that  the  CommiaBioa  to  the 
Seventy  in  Luke  is  a  variant  of  the  Commission  to  the  Twelve  in 
Biatthew.  The  details  of  both  these  discourses  have  probably  been 
more  or  less  coloured  by  the  later  experiences  of  the  hrst  Christian 

t  iiatt.  xiz.  21. 

'  Luke  vi.  20  ;  Matt  v.  3. 

*  Matt.  xix.  24  ;  Mark  x.  25  ;  Luke  xviii.  25. 

*  Luke  xii.  16 ;  xvi.  19.    Cf.  also  Matt.  vi.  19-34. 

*  Matt,  xviii.  1-4  ;   Matt.  xix.  13-14,  etc 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ     125 

his  intolerable  arrogance  and  contempt  for  others.  ^  By  the 
man  who  really  loves  his  neighbour  as  himself,  the  excel- 
lences of  others  will  be  as  highly  esteemed  as  his  own ; 
their  sins  and  deficiencies  will  be  to  him  a  subject  of 
genuine  pity  and  regret,  not  of  ostentatious  self -congratula- 
tion and  haughty  isolation.  That  Jesus  recognized  this 
connexion  between  Humility  and  Love,  is,  I  think,  clear 
from  His  whole  treatment  of  the  subject.  "  He  that  is 
greatest  among  you,  let  him  be  as  the  younger,  and 
he  that  is  chief  as  he  that  doth  serve.'' ^  True  great- 
ness consists  in  social  service :  there  is  one  kind  of 
ambition  which  He  does  not  deny  to  His  disciples — 
the  ambition  to  serve  much.  The  oft-repeated  ex- 
hortation to  become  as  little  children  refers, ^  I  think, 
not  primarily  to  the  simphcity,  guilelessness  and  other 
real  or  supposed  virtues  of  childhood,  but  rather  to 
the  insignificance  of  children — with  possibly  a  suggestion 
that  those  who  wish  to  enter  the  Kingdom  should,  as 
children  have  to  do  in  poor  families,  be  much  engaged  in 
the  service  of  others.^  These  sayings  are  invitations  to 
self-subordination  and  social  service  rather  than  to 
simphcity  or  child-likeness  of  character.  In  condemning 
grasping,  self-assertive,  pushful  ambition,  Jesus  was  only 
carrying  on  one  of  the  characteristic  features  of  later 
Jewish  morality. 

^  "The  high-souled  man  justly  despises"  (others).  **He  is 
ashamed  of  receiving  a  benefit,"  for  that  implies  inferiority.  "  To- 
wards those  in  power  or  prosperity  he  is  haughty,  but  to  the  lesser 
people  condescending"  {/x^TpLos)y  etc.  (Nic.  Eth.  iv.  3). 

*  Luke  xxii.  26. 

3  Matt.  xix.  13-14  =:Mark  x.  i4=Luke  xviii.  16  ("of  such  is 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  "). 

*  So  in  the  Middle  Ages  the  child  habitually  waited  at  table,  and 
even  the  sons  of  the  rich  were  brought  up  as  pages  in  the  house- 
holds of  Bishops  or  great  secular  X-ords. 


126  Conscience  and  Christ 

One  reason  for  humility  recognized  by  our  Lord  is  that 
it  is  a  necessary  outcome  of  love  to  one's  neighbour.  But 
another  ground  on  which  Jesus  could  not  have  approved 
Aristotle's  "  high-souled  man "  is  His  strong  sense  of 
human  imf)erfection,  of  the  need  for  self-condemnation, 
repentance,  and  humility  in  the  sight  of  God.  "  None  is, 
good,  save  one,  even  God."*  The  true  moral  ideal  is  so 
high  that  no  one  can  self-complacently  suppose  that  he  has 
attained  it.  Of  Humility  on  this  side  the  noblest  expres- 
sion is  the  parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  tax-gatherer.* 
The  same  principle  underlies  the  condemnation  of  cen- 
sorious condemnation  of  others  which  is  contained  in  the 
maxim  **  Judge  not "  and  the  saying  about  the  mote  and 
the  beam.* 

(6)  The  Christian  Good,  The  duty  of  love  means  the 
duty  of  promoting  the  true  good  of  Humanity,  and  in  its 
practical  applications  it  will  vary  enormously  according 
to  the  interpretation  which  is  given  to  that  true  good.  In 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  the  importance  of  the  spiritual— of 
conduct,  of  character,  of  motive,  is  everywhere  insisted 
upon,  while  at  the  same  time  there  is  no  ascetic  dis- 
paragement of  ordinary  human  happiness.  Happiness  is 
not  despised,  but  the  chief  good  which  the  Christian  lover 
will  seek  to  realize  for  the  loved  is  to  make  him  also  a  lover 
— a  lover  of  God,  a  lover  of  all  that  is  good,  a  lover  of 
hfa  fellow-men.  This  principle  has  perhaps  been  suffi- 
ciently insisted  upon  in  our  analysis  of  the  sermon  on  the 
Moimt,  but  I  should  like  here  to  quote  a  fine  passage  from 
Professor  Royce's  recent  book  on  the  Problem  of  Chris- 
tianity. Professor  Royce  has  mastered,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
the  true  essence  of  Christ's  own  moral  teaching  in  a  way 

'  Mark  x.  iSsLoke  xviii.  19. 

*  Luke  xviii.  9-14. 

*  Matt.  vii.  I,  2  (  =  Luke  vi.  37) ;  Blatt.  vii.  3  (»Liike  vi.  41). 


The  Ethical  Teachmg  of  Jesus  Christ     127 

which  hardly  any  professed  Philosopher  has  ever  done 

before : — 

*'  But  now  let  us  return  to  the  relation  of  love  to  the 
services  that  one  is  to  offer  to  one's  neighbor.  What 
can  the  lover — in  so  far  as  Jesus  describes  his  task — 
what  can  he  do  for  his  fellow-man  ? 

*'  To  this  question  it  is,  indeed,  possible  to  give  one 
answer  which  clearly  defines  a  duty  to  the  neighbor ; 
and  this  duty  is  emphasized  throughout  the  teaching  of 
Jesus.  This  duty  is  the  requirement  to  use  all  fitting 
means — example,  precept,  kindhness,  non-resistance, 
heroism,  patience,  courage,  strenuousness — all  means 
that  tend  to  make  the  neighbor  himself  one  of  the  lovers. 
The  first  duty  of  love  is  to  produce  love,  to  nourish  it, 
to  extend  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  by  teaching  love  to 
all  men.  And  this  service  to  one's  neighbor  is  a  clearly 
definable  service.  And  so  far  the  love  of  the  neighbor 
involves  no  unsolved  problems."^ 

(7)  Purity.  One  special  appHcation  of  the  last  principle 
— the  superiority  of  the  spiritual  to  the  carnal — upon 
which  Jesus  insisted  much  was  on  the  side  of  sexual 
Morality.  The  licentious  thought  was  condemned  no  less 
than  the  licentious  act  ;2  and  He  went  beyond  the  letter  of 
the  Jewish  law  in  condemning  divorce,  which  was  still 
common  though  some  Rabbis  condemned  it,  and  by 
implication  polygamy,  which  was  practically  unknown 
among  the  Jews  of  that  time.^ 

It  may  be  desirable  to  say  a  word  about  the  connexion 
between  Christ's  central  doctrine  of  Love  and  His  principles 
of  sexual  Morality — all  the  more  so  because  this  is  one  of 

^  I,  85.  I  should  like  to  quote  the  whole  chapter.  I  must  add 
that  in  other  directions  Professor  Royce's  interpretation  of  Chris- 
tianity seems  to  me  seriously  defective.  *  Matt.  v.  28. 

^  Matt.  xix.  3~io,  etc.  (see  above,  pp.  104-5). 


128  Conscience  and  Christ 

the  few  cases  in  which  intellectual  doubt  as  to  the  basis 
of  a  moral  duty  is  probably  a  very  frequent  cause  of  moral 
transgression.  What  then  is  the  true  answer  to  the 
question  *'  Why  is  fornication  wrong  ?  "  Tlie  duty  of 
abstaining  from  fornication  springs,  I  beUeve,  from  these 
two  principles  taken  together — the  duty  of  love,  which 
includes  respect,  for  every  human  being,  and  the  superi- 
ority of  the  spiritual  to  the  carnal.  Extra-matrimonial 
intercourse  is  degrading  to  the  woman.  That  it  is  in- 
trinsically degrading  to  the  woman  to  be  used  for  the 
satisfaction  of  the  lusts  of  a  man,  and  not  with  a  view  to 
a  permanent  imion  in  which  she  is  to  be  treated  as  the 
equal  companion  of  the  man  and  the  mother  of  his  children, 
is  one  of  those  truths  which  are  intuitively  j)erceived.  All 
judgements  as  to  the  nature  of  the  good  are  of  this 
character  :  they  must  be  apprehended  by  our  judgements 
of  value.  That  the  vast  majority  of  men  do  thus  judge  is 
made  plain  enough  by  the  attitude  which  the  most  licen- 
tious man  of  the  world  would  instantly  assume  towards 
the  seducer  of  a  sister  or  a  daughter,  and  by  his  contempt 
for  immoral  women.  If  a  man  accepts  the  principle  that 
every  human  being  is  equally  to  be  treated  as  an  object 
of  love,  entitled  to  his  or  her  share  in  whatever  is  truly 
good,  entitled  to  be  treated  as  a  "  brother  or  a  sister  "  or 
(in  more  philosophical  language)  as  an  end-in-himself ,  then 
he  cannot  justify  the  treatment  of  another  woman  in  a 
way  which  would  arouse  his  utmost  indignation  if  any 
woman  he  really  cared  for  were  so  treated  by  another. 
And  the  obligation  to  treat  every  other  woman  as  he  would 
wish  his  sister  to  be  treated  is  not  altered  by  the  fact  that 
weakness  or  poverty  or  vanity  or  sinful  inclination  may 
make  her  a  willing  victim.  The  man  who  accepts  Christ's 
principle  is  bound  to  promote  the  true  good  of  every  other, 
not  to  gratify  all  his  actual  desires.     It   may  be  added 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jestis  Christ    129 

that  in  a  vast  number  of  cases  the  wrong  inflicted  on 
the  woman  is  not  merely  the  moral  degradation  but  the 
first  step  on  the  road  to  ruin  in  every  sense  of  the  word.^ 

(8)  Repentance,  The  very  idea  of  an  absolute  duty — 
implied  in  all  the  teaching  of  our  Lord — carries  with  it  the 
duty  of  repentance  where  there  has  been  a  violation  of  duty. 
Or  to  put  it  otherwise,  our  Lord  taught  that  sin  is  the 
worst  of  evils,  and  a  recognition  of  that  truth  necessarily 
brings  with  it  sorrow  for  sin — both  for  positive  external 
wrong-doing  and  for  any  failure  in  love.  Obvious  as  these 
deductions  are,  they  have  not  always  been  actually  drawn 
in  practice.  There  is  nothing  about  repentance  in 
Aristotle,  not  very  much  in  Plato ;  more  no  doubt  in 
the  teaching  of  the  Stoics,  though  the  proud  self-sufficiency 
of  that  school  hardly  favours  a  penitential  attitude  of 
mind.  The  insistence  upon  the  necessity  of  repentance,  and 
upon  the  closely  connected  doctrine  that  God  will  forgive 
wherever  there  is  sincere  repentance,  was  one  of  the  great 
points  upon  which  the  Jewish  prophetic  teaching  most 
clearly  goes  beyond  the  moral  level  of  the  ancient  world. 
And  here  the  doctrine  of  the  Rabbis  was  quite  faithful  to 
the  best  traditions  of  Judaism, ^  though  there  are  many 
things  about  the  necessity  of  ritual  expiation  on  the  great 
day  of  the  Atonement  and  otherwise  which  are  hope- 
lessly inconsistent  with  this  doctrine.  In  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  the  necessity  for  repentance  was  absolutely  central. 

^  Those  sexual  immoralities  to  which  these  considerations  do 
not  apply  are  equally  condemned  by  our  immediate  judgements  of 
value,  and  here  we  are  able  to  appeal  to  a  very  general  con- 
sensus. There  are  some  pleasures  which  do  not  form  part  of  true 
human  good,  and  everyone  is  bound  to  promote  his  own  true  good 
as  well  as  that  of  others. 

*  "  Nothing  can  be  proved  by  more  abundant  and  overwhelming 

evidence  than  that  the  conception  of  God  as  forgiving  from  free 

grace  was  a  fundamental  and  familiar  feature  of  the  Pharisaic 

religion,  just  as  it  still  remains  so  "  (Montefiore,  Syn.  Gospels,  I,  79). 

K 


130  Conscience  and  Christ 

Even  those  who  most  one-sidedly  insist  upon  the  eschato- 
logical  character  of  Christ's  teaching  admit  that  the 
necessity  of  repentance  for  entrance  into  the  Kingdom  was 
from  first  to  last  as  prominent  a  feature  of  His  message  as 
the  proclamation  that  the  Kingdom  was  at  hand.^  The 
noblest  expression  of  this  necessity  is  the  parable  of  the 
Pharisee  and  the  Publican  with  its  emphatic  declaration 
that  the  repentant  sinner  was  justified  rather  than  the 
self-complacent  observer  of  the  Law.* 

The  modem  depreciation  of  repentance  is  a  note  either 
of  superficiality  or  of  cant.  Professor  Ohver  Lodge's  much- 
discussed  declaration  that  the  modem  man  has  no  time  to 
think  of  his  sins  is  really  one  of  the  most  unwise  things 
that  was  ever  uttered  by  an  able  and  religious-minded  man. 
If  a  man's  will  is  not  wholly  directed  towards  the  good,  he 
must  hate  and  condemn  himself  in  so  far  as  his  will  is  bad  ; 
and  he  cannot  do  that  unless  he  knows  himself,  unless  he 
reflects  on  his  bad  actions  and  sorrows  over  them  and  the 
character  which  they  reveal,  and  deliberately  resolves  to 
tum  from  them.  If  the  man  believes  in  a  perfectly  righteous 
Being  whose  Will  is  identical  with  the  law  of  his  Conscience 
(so  far  as  that  Conscience  sees  truly) — a  Being  from  whom 
he  has  alienated  himself  by  his  transgressions — his  sorrow 
will  be  deepened,  and  will  assume  the  form  of  a  desire  for 
reconcihation  with  that  Being,  which  will  most  naturally 
express  itself  in  confession  and  prayer  for  forgiveness, 
restitution,  change  of  will.  Repentance  is  only  the  reverse 
side  of  the  tuming  towards  good.  It  is  not  complete,  it 
cannot  exist,  without  effort  after  amendment.  And  this  is 
a  tmth  which  is  everywhere  taught  by  Jesus.  It  is  implied 
in  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son*  whose  willingness  to 
become  as  one  of  his  father's  hired  servants  was  already  an 

>  Marki.  15-Matt.  iv.  17. 

»  Luke  xviii.  9-14.  •  Luke  xv.  11-32. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ    131 

act  of  amendment.  It  is  the  especial  point  of  the  parable 
of  the  two  sons.  The  son  who  "  afterwards  repented  and 
went ''  had  begun  to  do  the  will  of  his  father.  ^ 

(9)  The  duty  of  making  others  better.  The  necessity  of 
repentance  was  a  prominent  feature  of  rabbinic  teaching. 
That  was  also  to  some  extent  the  case  with  another  impHca- 
tion  of  the  doctrine  that  the  most  valuable  element  in 
the  good  Hfe  is  goodness  itself,  i.e.  the  duty  of  promoting 
that  good  in  others,  and  of  encouraging  repentance  in  those 
who  lack  it.  The  prophets  had  both  by  example  and 
precept  set  forth  the  importance  of  making  other  men 
righteous,  and  so  had  the  Rabbis.  But  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  by  any  of  them  this  duty  had  been  emphasized 
as  it  is  emphasized  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  When  once 
it  is  recognized  that  the  Kingdom  whose  advent  was  fore- 
told was  an  ethical  and  spiritual  Kingdom,  a  new  heaven 
and  a  new  earth  wherein  was  to  dwell  righteousness,  the 
eschatological  character  of  the  teaching  only  adds  additional 
emphasis  to  this  supreme  duty — the  promotion  for  others 
of  a  good  wherein  righteousness  is  the  most  important 
element.  From  this  point  of  view  all  the  parables  of  the 
Kingdom,  whatever  subordinate  aspects  of  it  they  are 
intended  to  teach,  become  so  many  emphatic  assertions  of 
this  duty. 

The  specially  characteristic  application  of  this  principle 
which  we  find  in  Jesus  is  His  insistence  on  the  duty  and 
blessedness  of  bringing  sinners  to  repentance.  The 
importance  of  righteousness  is  a  common  note  of  all  high 
moral  teaching,  but  it  has  often  been  accompanied  by 
much  contempt  of  sinners  and  a  disposition  to  avoid  them. 
Christ  pitied  the  sinner  and  sought  to  move  him  to  repent- 
ance. And  this  is  no  more  than  a  logical  deduction  from 
these  three  principles — the  duty  of  love,  the  doctrine  that 
^  Matt.  xxi.  29. 


132  Conscience  and  Christ 

sin  is  the  worst  of  evils,  the  possibility  of  repentance  and 
amendment  even  for  the  worst.  The  teaching  of  Jesus  is 
full  of  this  idea.  It  will  be  enough  to  refer  to  the  parable 
of  the  lost  sheep  and  the  memorable  paradox  "  I  say 
unto  you  that  even  so  there  shall  be  joy  in  heaven  over 
one  sinner  that  repenteth,  more  than  over  ninety  and 
nine  just  persons  who  need  no  repentance."^  The  truth 
that  repentance  is  never  impossible  —  and  that  when 
there  is  a  full  repentance,  no  punishment  is  called 
for  or  will  be  demanded  by  God — is  illustrated  by  the 
parable  of  the  labourers.  "  I  will  give  unto  this  last  even 
as  unto  thee."*  The  whole  life  of  Jesus,  His  association 
with  the  "  tax-gatherers  and  sinners  "  whom  the  correct 
religious  world  despised,  was  an  illustration  of  it — a  side  of 
His  teaching  sometimes  forgotten  by  the  extreme  "  Eschato- 
logists  "  who  complain  that  our  Lord  taught  no  Ethics  of 
pennanent  value.  H  they  think  that  the  ethical  principle 
which  underlies  such  a  mission  to  the  morally  lost  is 
suitable  only  for  an  "  Interimsethik,"  that  is  their  doctrine, 
not  the  Christ's.  On  this  subject  Mr.  Montefiore  remarks  : 
"  So  far  as  we  can  tell,  this  pity  for  the  sinner  was  a  new 
note  in  religious  history  "  (Syn.  Gospels,  II,  574). 

(10)  The  sin  of  casting  stumbling-blocks.  The  heinous- 
ness  of  the  sin  involved  in  putting  a  stumbhng-block  in 
the  way  of   others,  particularly  of  the  little  ones,  the 

>  Luke  xv.  7 ;  Matt  xviit.  13  (Lake  adds  the  parable  of  the 
lost  piece  of  silver,  xv.  8).  The  thought  can  only  be  understood 
literally  if  it  be  assumed  that  the  righteousness  of  the  ninety  and 
nine  was  merely  external  righteousness  or  at  least  an  easy  righteous- 
ness helped  by  favourable  drdtnstanoes,  which  implied  less  good- 
will than  the  repentance  of  the  sinner.  But  this  is  too  prosaic  a 
way  to  treat  the  parable.  Matthew  perhaps  did  not  like  this 
disparagement  of  the  righteous  which  he  found  in  his  source  (Q) 
and  omitted  it. 

•  Matt.  XX.  12-1^. 


The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus  Christ    133 

simple  and  the  weak,  is  only  a  particular  application — 
a  negative  application — of  the  duty  of  helping  others  to 
avoid  sin.i  And  this  leads  on  to  the  more  general  principle 
— the  intrinsic  value  of  the  lowliest  soul,  for  all  are  capable 
of  goodness,  however  narrow  their  sphere  of  action  and 
however  small  their  intellectual  capacities.  "  See  that  ye 
despise  not  one  of  these  little  ones  ;  for  I  say  unto  you  that 
in  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven."^ 

(11)  The  danger  of  hypocrisy.  Much  of  the  moral  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  is  concerned  not  so  much  with  the  enforcement 
of  particular  duties  as  with  the  importance  of  goodness  in 
general — the  good  will  itself.  This  carried  with  it  a  special 
emphasis  on  the  wickedness  of  h^^pocrisy^ — the  besetting 
sin  of  rehgious  people  in  a  community  in  which  piety  was 
at  a  premium,  a  passport  to  social  recognition  and  import- 
ance. This  is  the  principle  which  underlay  His  denunciation 
of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  Here  again  those  who 
complain  of  the  "interim"  character  of  Christ's  in- 
junctions seem  unable  to  distinguish  between  the  im- 
mediate and  the  permanent  application  of  His  sayings. 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  are  always  with  us,  though  in  the 
modern  world  hypocrisy  may  often  assume  forms  strangely 
different  from  those  common  in  first-century  Palestine — 
especially  the  form  of  an  *'  inverted  hypocrisy  "  which  sets 
up  claims  to  a  greater  emancipation  from  moral  restraint 
than  the  pretender  really  believes  in  or  is  prepared  to  put 
into  practice.  Much  contemporary  literature  is  steeped  in 
this  kind  of  hypocrisy.  The  interim  for  which,  according 
to  some,  Christ's  Ethic  was  suited,  has  certainly  not  come 
to  an  end  yet. 

^  Matt,  xviii.  6,  7  ;   Mark  ix.  42  ;   Luke  xvii.  1,2. 

*  Matt,  xviii.  10. 

*  Matt.  vi.  1-6,  16-18. 


LECTURE   IV 

OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  MORAL  TEACHING 
OF  CHRIST 

I  PROPOSE  in  the  present  lecture  to  consider 
some  of  the  objections  which  are  most  commonly 
made  to  the  moral  teaching  of  Jesus.  We  have  seen 
that  the  fundamental  principle  of  Christian  Ethics,  as 
laid  down  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself,  resolves 
itself  into  the  general  principle  of  impartial  love  to- 
wards all  mankind.^  I  have  already  pointed  out  that 
nothing  is  more  characteristic  of  Jesus  than  the 
generality  or  universaUty  of  His  teaching,  and  that 
it  is  this  characteristic  which  makes  it  possible  for  the 
teaching  of  One  who  Uved  in  a  petty,  not  very  ad- 
vanced commimity  of  the  ancient  world,  to  be  accepted 
as  the  basis  of  a  universal  morality  and  a  universal 
reUgion. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  essential  to  recognize  that  our 
Lord  did  not  actually  limit  Himself  to  the  teaching 

*  The  word  *'  impartial  "  carries  with  it  the  implication  that 
Benevolence  is  to  be  combined  with  Justice.  Justice  requires  that 
each  individual  should  be  treated  according  to  his  real  value.  That 
every  soul  of  man  has  real  value  was  a  prominent  feature  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus.  The  relations  between  Justice  and  Benevo- 
lence are  fuUy  dealt  with  in  my  Theory  oj  Good  and  Evil,  Bk.  I, 
chap.  viii. 

'34 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     135 

of  this  one  fundamental  principle.  No  ethical  teach- 
ing that  did  limit  itself  to  abstract  generalities  of  this 
kind  could  possibly  have  produced  a  powerful  influence 
on  human  souls  and  human  lives.  The  moral  teacher 
must  be  concrete  :  he  must  go  into  details  of  conduct. 
No  teaching  was  ever  more  concrete  than  that  of 
Christ.  In  a  sense  no  teaching  was  more  detailed  or 
more  practical.  The  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan 
embodies  a  principle,  but  at  the  same  time  it  suggests 
an  immediately  practicable  and  very  definite  duty. 
Much  of  Christ's  teaching — indeed  much  of  the  teach- 
ing which  has  most  influenced  the  world — relates  not 
to  detailed  questions  about  the  content  of  duty, 
questions  as  to  what  particular  things  are  right  and 
wrong,  but  to  the  supreme  importance  of  goodness  in 
general.  And  the  teaching  of  universal  love  would 
have  been  very  cold  and  unpersuasive  apart  from  the 
particular  applications  and  interpretations  which  He 
gave  to  it.  Indeed,  the  doctrine  of  universal  love  or 
universal  Benevolence  may  lead  in  practice  to  totally 
different  kinds  of  conduct  according  to  the  way  in 
which  it  is  interpreted.  For  what  does  Love  mean  ? 
It  means  surely  desiring  to  promote  the  true  good  of 
another  person,  treating  that  other  person's  good  as 
an  end  of  no  less  intrinsic  importance  than  one's  own 
good.  The  precept,  therefore,  "  promote  thy  neigh- 
bour's good  "  gives  us  no  information  until  we  know 
wherein  consists  this  true  good  of  one's  neighbour. 
And  again  the  practical  rules  of  conduct  to  which  this 


136  Conscience  and  Christ 

principle  leads  will  become  very  different  according  to 
the  view  we  take  as  to  the  means  by  which  this  true 
good  is  to  be  promoted.  It  is  chiefly  to  the  detailed 
rules  of  conduct — to  the  conception  which  our  Lord's 
teaching  exhibits  of  human  good  and  to  the  detailed 
rules  of  conduct  for  promoting  it,  and  not  to  the 
general  principle  of  love  to  mankind — that  exception 
is  taken  by  people  whose  moral  ideal  is  not  that  of 
mere  selfishness.  Such  persons  often  admit  the 
enormous  and  beneficent  moral  revolution  introduced 
by  that  teaching,  but  it  seems  to  them  too  much  marred 
by  the  limitations  of  a  race  and  a  period  to  be  treated 
as  containing  in  any  sense  a  full  or  final  body  of 
ethical  teaching  suited  for  all  races  and  all  times. 
To  deal  with  these  objections  will  be  the  best  way,  I 
think,  of  removing  misunderstandings,  of  bringing 
out  the  real  nature  of  Christian  morality,  and  of  lay- 
ing a  foundation  for  an  answer  to  a  further  question 
which  I  have  had  in  view  all  through  these  Lectures — 
the  question  in  what  sense  the  revelation  of  God  in 
Christ  may  be  regarded  as  hnal  or  complete — in  what 
sense  Christianity,  looked  at  either  on  its  purely  ethical 
or  on  its  religious  side,  can  be  regarded  as  a  universal, 
or  absolute,  reUgion. 

Of  course  there  are  ethical  writers  of  the  present 
day  who  are  out  of  sympathy  with  the  very  principle 
of  Love  or  universal  Brotherhood,  and  not  merely  with 
particular  appUcations  or  misapplications  or  alleged 
exaggerations  of  it.     There  are,  again,   those  who. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     137 

without  (it  may  be)  personally  entertaining  an  anti- 
social ideal,  take  too  naturalistic  a  view  of  the 
Universe  to  be  able  to  find  a  place  in  their  theory  of  it 
for  the  idea  of  moral  obligation  at  all,  whether  in  a 
religious  or  a  purely  ethical  form.  There  are  others 
(among  whom  the  insane  genius  Nietzsche  is  the  most 
conspicuous)  who  deliberately  invert  the  Christian  law, 
and  defend  a  Morality  based  upon  pure,  unmitigated 
Egoism ;  who  hold  that  the  superior  person,  the 
*'  Uebermensch,''  the  *'  Super-man,''  has  a  right  to 
assert  his  own  individuality  to  the  utmost  possible 
extent,  and  to  treat  all  other  and  inferior  persons  as 
mere  means  or  instruments  for  his  own  enjoyment  or 
'*  self-realization,"  who  maintain  in  so  many  words 
that  selfishness  is  noble,  self-sacrifice  mean  and 
contemptible.  I  believe  it  can  be  shown  that  such  an 
Ethic  is  as  irrational  and  self-contradictory  as  it  is 
opposed  to  the  ordinary  feelings  of  mankind.^    Here, 

^  If  anyone  is  inclined  to  think  that  Egoism,  as  an  ethical  doc- 
trine, is  capable  of  philosophical  defence,  I  would  recommend  him  to 
study  E.  von  Hartmann's  scathing  criticism  of  Nietzsche's  ideas  in 
Ethische  Studien,  pp.  33-90,  or  G.  A.  Moore,  Studia  Ethica,  p.  99  sq. 
The  contradiction  may  be  briefly  pointed  out.  The  Egoist  says  : 
"  It  is  intrinsically  reasonable  for  me  (A)  to  promote  my  own  good 
alone."  But  the  meaning  of  good  is  something  which  is  intrinsically 
valuable,  something  which  ought  therefore  to  be  brought  into  exist- 
ence so  far  as  that  is  possible.  It  can  only  be  reasonable  for  me  to 
promote  my  own  good  alone,  if  it  is  the  only  good  in  the  world.  If 
that  were  so,  another  person  (B)  would  also  be  bound  to  promote 
my  good  and  that  of  no  one  else.  But,  if  I  tell  B  that  it  is  reason- 
able for  him  also  to  be  an  Egoist  and  so  to  promote  his  own  good  and 
that  of  no  one  else,  I  imply  that  his  good  is  the  only  good  in  the 
world.  Here  I  contradict  myself :  I  say  that  A's  good  is  the  only 
good  in  the  world  and  ought  to  be  promoted  by  everyone,  including 


138  Conscience  and  Christ 

however,  I  am  not  concerned  with  such  fundamental 
objections,  but  with  objections  in  point  of  detail — with 
objections  which  may  be  made  by  people  who  cordially 
accept  the  fact  of  moral  obUgation,  and  who  may  not 
even  deny  that  the  Christian  law  of  love,  rightly  under- 
stood, is  the  fundamental  law  of  Ethics,  though  it 
requires  (they  may  think)  a  development  and  an 
interpretation  different  in  some  degree  from  that  which 
was  actually  given  it  by  our  Lord  Himself  and  by  the 
early  Christian  Church.  Before  I  attempt  this  task, 
however,  I  would  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  objec- 
tions are  for  the  most  part  to  details,  to  appUcations, 
not  to  the  fundamental  principle.  The  applications 
which  our  Lord  gives  to  His  precepts  are  for  the  most 
part  avowedly  illustrations  of  the  principle.  We 
must  expect  that  the  illustrations  should  sometimes 
have  a  reference  to  the  immediate  circumstances  of 
time  and  place,  to  the  then  condition  of  Jewish  Society, 
to  the  environment  and  position  of  the  teacher  and  the 
taught.  It  might  be  possible  to  go  further  than  that, 
and  to  admit  that  some  of  His  appUcations  were  mis- 
taken or  narrow  or  one-sided,  even  relatively  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  time,  and  still  to  remain  in  a 
very  real  sense  a  follower  of  Christ  and  a  believer  in 

B.  and  at  the  same  time  I  say  that  B  should  think  his  own  good  as 
the  only  good  in  the  world.  Egoism  therefore  involves  an  internal 
contradictioo — a  conclusion  which  cannot  be  accepted  by  anyone 
who  profettes  that  his  ethical  system  is  rational.  The  irrationality 
of  the  national  Egoiam  now  defended  by  so  many  German  writers 
may  be  exhibited  in  exactly  the  same  way. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     ±39 

the  Christian  reUgion.  I  do  not  myself  think  that 
any  such  admissions  are  required,  but  the  possibiUty 
should  be  faced  with  an  open  mind. 

(i)  The  first  objection  to  the  Ethic  of  Christ  which 
I  shall  consider  is  the  general  suggestion  that  it 
teaches  exaggerated  self-sacrifice,  exaggerated  un- 
selfishness— that  it  insists  on  love  of  neighbour  and 
forbids  the  due  and  proper  regard  for  self,  that 
reasonable  self-love  of  which  so  orthodox  a  Moralist 
as  Bishop  Butler  has  spoken  with  so  much  respect. 
Certainly  such  a  consequence  does  not  flow  from  the 
principle  of  loving  one's  neighbour  as  oneself,  and 
Christ  never  taught  that  a  man  ought  to  love  his 
neighbour  better  than  himself.  By  the  later  Christian 
Church  such  a  doctrine  has  more  than  once  been 
formally  condemned.^  The  very  principle  on  which 
the  rule  of  Altruism  is  founded  would  be  inconsistent 
with  such  an  exaggeration.  The  duty  of  loving  one's 
neighbour  springs  from  the  truth — a  truth  which  is 
the  very  heart  and  centre  of  Christ's  teaching — that 
each  individual  human  self  or  life  or  soul  possesses  an 
intrinsic  value.  That  same  principle  requires  there- 
fore that  each  man  should  treat  himself  as  of  no  less 
value  than  his  neighbour.  Most  of  the  exaggerations 
of  self-sacrifice  have  sprung  from  forgetfulness  of  this 
principle.    It  cannot  be  reasonable  that  an  individual 

^  In  1346  Nicholas  de  Ultricuria  was  condemned  for  maintaining 
even  that  a  man  ought  to  love  better  than  himself  a  man  who  is 
better  than  himself.  See  Denifle  and  Chatelain,  Chartularium 
Universitatis  Parisiensis,  T.  II,  No.  1124. 


140  Conscience  and  Christ 

should  sacrifice  a  larger  amount  of  his  own  good  for 
a  smaller  amount  of  another's  ;  or  that  he  should  lay 
down  as  a  rule  for  universal  observance  a  precept 
which,  if  universally  obeyed,  would  prove  fatal  to  the 
general  interests  of  the  whole  conmiunity  ;  or  that  he 
should  promote  one  man's  interests  at  the  expense  of 
a  much  larger  nimiber  of  persons  who  are  no  less  his 
brethren. 

This  seems  to  be  forgotten  by  people  like  Count 
Tolstoi,  who  think  it  inconsistent  with  Christian 
principles  under  any  circxunstances  to  refuse  relief  to 
a  beggar,  or  to  punish  a  criminal.  To  give  to  beggars 
in  the  street  when  one  knows  that  the  effect  of  doing 
so  habitually  will  be  a  doubtful  boon  to  the  recipient 
himself,  and  will  certainly  turn  those  who  are  now 
honest  working-men  into  habitual  mendicants ;  to 
give  in  a  way  which  will  injure  the  self-respect  of  the 
receiver  and  encourage  him  in  idleness  and  dependence  ; 
to  give  away  what  ought  to  be  spent  upon  the  mainte- 
nance of  a  family  and  provision  for  the  future  ;  even 
to  give  to  an  extent  which,  if  generally  followed,  would 
lower  the  standard  of  life  and  of  culture  for  the  whole 
community — such  giving  cannot  be  a  true  application 
of  the  Christian  principle  of  loving  one's  neighbour  as 
oneself.  How  far,  it  may  be  asked,  would  our  Lord 
Himself  have  recognized  this  interpretation  of  His 
words  ?  There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  Jesus 
actually  imderstood  those  laws  of  social  Well-being 
which  have  only  been  discovered  by  the  extended 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     141 

experience,  the  accumulated  observation,  the  social 
and  economic  Science  of  later  ages.  In  some  ways 
no  doubt  kinds  of  giving  which  are  harmful  when 
carried  out  on  a  large  scale  in  our  highly  complex 
society  may  have  been  less  harmful,  or  not  harmful  at 
all,  in  a  simpler  society.  To  this  day  the  poor  give 
to  each  other  on  a  scale  which  shames  the  grudging 
and  scanty  charity  of  the  rich,  and  they  do  so  very 
often  with  the  best  results.  There  is  no  loss  of  self- 
respect  in  taking  money  from  a  friend  who  knows  the 
reality  of  the  need,  when  the  receiver  would  be  ashamed 
to  take  it  the  moment  he  could  do  without  it,  when  the 
donor  may  the  next  day  stand  in  the  like  need  of 
assistance  himself.  Even  in  their  application  to  the 
circumstances  of  His  own  day  it  is  most  improbable 
that  our  Lord  had  actually  thought  out  these  ques- 
tions as  to  the  limitations  of  giving.  But  it  would  be 
quite  unreasonable  to  contend  that,  because  He  said, 
"  Give  to  him  that  asketh  thee,  and  from  him  that 
would  borrow  of  thee  turn  not  thou  away,''^  therefore 
He  would  have  refused  to  recognize  that  there  might 
be  occasions  on  which  it  is  right  to  refuse  a  dole. 
Do  we  not  all  of  us — the  most  enlightened  and  phil- 
osophic Moralist,  the  most  stony-hearted  charity 
organizer,  the  most  cold-blooded  social  scientist  among 
us — say  to  children  '*  Do  not  lie,  do  not  be  hard  on 
other  people,  do  not  kill "  ;   although  we  fully  recog- 

^  Matt.  V.  42 ;  Luke  vi.  30  has :  "  of  him  that  taketh  away  thy 
goods,  ask  them  not  again  "  (dirairet). 


142  Conscience  and  Christ 

nize  on  reflection  that  there  are  exceptional  circum- 
stances under  which  the  interests  of  Society  demand 
hardness  or  lying,  and  in  which  killing  is  no  murder  ? 
All  moral  teaching  has  to  be  given  in  the  form  of 
general  rules :  we  cannot  at  every  turn  be  dealing 
with  exceptions.  Jesus  Himself,  by  turning  aside  at 
times  from  the  crowds  who  wanted  Him  to  heal  their 
sick,  recognized  the  principle  that  one  detailed  moral 
rule  may  sometimes  interfere  with  another  ;  that  one 
good  can  sometimes  only  be  attained  by  the  sacrifice 
of  some  other  and  lesser  good  ;  that  we  must  think  of 
the  future  as  well  as  of  the  present,  and  do  that  which 
is  best  for  our  fellow-men  on  the  whole.  There  were 
times  when  it  was  necessary  for  the  eventual  good  of 
His  disciples  and  of  humanity  generally  that  He  should 
secure  leisure  for  that  meditation  and  communion  with 
God  from  which  He  derived  His  power  to  succour 
them,  or  for  teaching  His  disciples  how  to  preach 
the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom — more  necessary  than  to 
relieve  this  or  that  sufferer  or  minister  to  the  wants 
of  this  or  that  body  or  mind  diseased. 

Another  way  of  putting  the  same  thing  is  this.  Our 
Lord  fully  recognized  that  the  supreme  moral  law 
dealt  with  dispositions,  intentions,  the  state  of  the 
heart.  The  true  moral  law,  as  it  has  been  said,  is 
internal.*  The  internal  law  has  no  exception.  It  is 
always  right  to  love  or  to  be  charitably  minded.  But 
internal    precepts   must    be   illustrated   and   defined 

^  Sir  Leslie  Stephen,  Science  of  Ethics,  p.  i^S  seq. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     143 

by  the  acts  which  under  ordinary  or  normal  circum- 
stances flow  from  them.  The  most  obvious  appHca- 
tion  of  the  rule  "  Be  kind  *'  is  "  Give,  lend,  refuse  not/' 
But  there  are  circumstances  under  which  a  truer 
charity,  more  desire  for  our  neighbour's  good,  will 
show  itself  in  the  refusal  to  give  or  to  lend  than  is 
shown  by  the  kindness  which  insists  on  giving  even 
when  it  will  do  more  harm  than  good.  I  do  not  deny 
that  there  may  have  been  occasions  when  our  Lord 
might  have  said  *'  Give  "  when  a  wider  consideration 
of  social  consequences  would  induce  us  to  say  *'  With- 
hold "  ;  but  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  precept  of  His 
which  is  inconsistent  with  the  interpretation  which 
I  have  attempted  to  put  upon  them  when  they  are 
understood  with  the  same  allowance  for  possible  excep- 
tions or  complementary  principles  which  we  should 
make  in  interpreting  any  other  moral  teacher  of  any 
age  or  country. 

(2)  The  next  objection  which  I  shall  notice  is  the 
same  in  principle  as  the  last,  and  ought,  I  think,  to 
be  met  in  much  the  same  way.  It  is  said  that  our 
Lord  lays  down  principles  of  non-resistance,  sub- 
missiveness,  meekness  which  are  inconsistent  with 
manly  self-respect ;  and  which,  if  generally  observed, 
would  be  fatal  to  the  very  existence  of  social  order 
and  civil  society.  *'  Resist  not  him  that  is  evil :  but 
whosoever  smiteth  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to 
him  the  other  also.  And  if  any  man  would  go  to  law 
with  thee,  and  take  away  thy  coat,  let  him  have  thy 


144  Conscience  and  Christ 

cloke  also  "^  and  so  on.  In  such  injunctions  Jesus  \vas 
clearly  not  thinking  of  political  problems  at  all.  They 
lay  entirely  beyond  His  province.  The  people  whom 
He  was  addressing  had  nothing  to  do  with  govern- 
ment or  the  administration  of  justice  :  they  had  no 
votes  and  did  not  sit  on  juries.  This  must  not  be 
distorted  into  the  doctrme  that  Christianity  has 
nothing  to  do  with  poHtics  or  social  questions.  The 
principles  of  Ethics,  whatever  principles  they  are  that 
we  adopt,  must  necessarily  be  applicable  to  all  spheres 
of  life.  Those  who  have  accepted  Christ's  principles  of 
conduct  must  necessarily,  when  they  find  themselves 
in  power,  regard  them  as  their  rule  of  action  in  their 
official  or  civil  capacity  as  well  as  in  their  business  Ufe 
and  their  private  affairs.  The  principles  must  be 
applied  to  politics  :  but  Christ  did  not  so  apply  them 
Himself.  He  was  speaking  of  the  conduct  of  private 
individuals  towards  one  another.  The  principle  which 
He  lays  down  is,  I  imagine,  this — that  the  spirit  of 
revenge  is  bad.  The  law  of  Brotherhood  requires 
that  we  should  love  every  human  being,  even  the  man 
who  has  done  us  an  injury.  His  bad  conduct  cannot 
alter  the  fact  that  he  is  an  end-in-himself,  that  his 
good  is  no  less  valuable  than  one's  own ;  even  if  he 
is  actually  bad,  still  he  has  capacities  of  goodness 
which  give  his  Ufe  a  value.  The  principle  is  the  one 
which  Plato — nearest  of  the  ancients  to  Christ  on  this 
side  of  his  thought,  if  not  on  all  sides — so  strenuously 

^  Matt.  V.  39,  40.    Cf.  Luke  vi.  29. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ      145 

asserted,  that  we  ought  always  to  do  good  to  every 
human  being,  and  never  evil,  and  that  therefore 
punishment  must  be  regarded  as  a  medicine  for  moral 
maladies.  We  should  never  avenge  an  injury  merely 
because  we  are  angry,  because  it  is  /  that  have  been 
injured,  because  my  personal  honour  demands  it. 
But  there  may  be  occasions  when  either  the  good  of 
the  offending  person  or  the  good  of  society  requires 
some  kind  of  resentment.  The  object  should  always 
be  to  do  what  is  best  for  the  person  himself,  so  far  as 
is  compatible  with  the  duty  that  we  owe  to  other 
persons. 

The  most  obvious  way  of  showing  another  that,  in 
spite  of  his  injury,  we  care  for  his  good,  and  of  bringing 
him  to  repentance,  is  to  forgive.  But  there  may  be 
cases  in  which  some  kind  of  resentment  is  best  both 
for  the  individual  himself  and  in  the  interests  of 
society  ;  there  are  occasions  when  the  interests  of  the 
individual  ought  to  give  way  to  the  interests  of  society 
— that  is  to  say,  to  the  interests  of  a  much  greater 
number  of  persons  who  are  also  our  brethren.  But 
this  is  very  much  less  often  the  case  than  most  of  us 
in  our  pride  and  our  selfishness  are  apt  to  imagine. 
And  when  we  do  determine  that  some  resentment  is 
necessary,  the  amount  and  the  form  of  it  should  be 
governed  by  the  same  principle  of  Christian  love  to 
the  offender  and  to  others.  Sometimes  literal  forgive- 
ness, in  the  sense  of  remission  of  penalty,  will  be  best ; 
sometimes  resentment ;  at  other  times  some  combina- 

L 


146  Conscience  and  Chnst 

tion  of  the  two.  Resentment  may  take  a  great  variety 
of  forms :  it  may  be  a  rebuke,  a  protest,  the  mere 
showing  that  we  are  hurt,  renunciation  of  friendship 
or  diminution  of  intimacy  or  a  change  of  manner. 
At  other  times  the  protection  of  society  may  make 
self-defence  a  duty,  and  self-defence  may  sometimes 
take  the  form  of  giving  blow  for  blow,  though  in  a 
civilized  and  orderly  society  for  obvious  reasons  no 
one  should  take  the  law  into  his  own  hands  (to  use 
the  common  phrase)  except  for  some  very  good 
reason,  and  on  very  exceptional  occasions.  At  other 
times  the  resentment  that  is  called  for  will  take  the 
form  of  legal  prosecution.  In  no  case,  be  it  remem- 
bered, is  the  duty  of  forgiveness  entirely  abrogated  by 
the  duty  of  resentment.  In  the  words  of  Bishop 
Butler,  *'  Resentment  is  not  inconsistent  with  good- 
will :  for  we  often  see  both  together  in  very  high 
degrees;  not  only  in  parents  towards  their  children, 
but  in  cases  of  friendship  and  dependence,  where  there 
is  no  natural  relation.  .  .  .  We  may  therefore  love  our 
enemy,  and  yet  have  resentment  against  him  for  his 
injurious  behaviour  towards  us.  But  when  this 
resentment  destroys  our  natural  Benevolence  towards 
him,  it  is  excessive  and  becomes  malice  or  revenge." 
The  injured  person  (to  quote  Butler  once  more) 
"  ought  to  be  affected  towards  the  injurious  person  in 
the  same  way  any  good  man,  uninterested  in  the 
case,  would  be,  if  they  had  the  same  just  sense  which 
we  have  supposed  the  injured  person  to  have  of  the 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     147 

fault :    after  which  there  will  yet  remain  real  good- 
will towards  the  offender/'^ 

How  far,  it  will  be  asked,  would  Christ  Himself  have 
recognized  this  statement  of  the  case  ?  Are  we  not, 
when  we  adopt  such  principles  of  action,  really  explain- 
ing away  His  teaching  ?  I  am  quite  sure  of  two  things : 
(a)  that  I  am  correctly  stating  the  principles  which 
flow  from  that  law  of  mutual  love  which  Christ  Him- 
self laid  down  as  the  supreme  moral  law  :  and  {b)  that 
if  in  any  matter  the  spirit  of  Christ's  teaching  is  seen 
by  us,  in  the  light  of  wider  knowledge  and  experience, 
to  be  inconsistent  with  any  application  which  He 
actually  gave  or  would  have  given  in  particular  cases, 
it  is  our  duty  to  follow  the  spirit  of  that  teaching  and 
not  the  letter,  the  principle  and  not  the  particular 
application.  But  I  do  not  think  that  by  interpreting 
His  rule  of  life  as  I  have  interpreted  it  we  are  con- 
travening any  command  of  His  which  He  meant  to 
be  literally  observed  in  every  possible  case.  To  what 
extent  Christ  had  actually  reflected  on  the  question 
how  far  in  some  cases  the  requirements  of  social  Well- 
being  made  it  necessary  for  men  who  wish  to  forgive 
nevertheless  to  punish,  for  men  who  desire  their 
neighbour's  ultimate  good  to  inflict  on  them  immediate 
evil,  how  far  He  would  have  recognized  the  exceptions 
for  which  I  have  been  pleading  in  the  application  of 

1  Sermon  ix.  in  Fifteen  Sermons.  I  have  fully  dealt  with  the 
problems  of  Punishment  and  Forgiveness  in  my  Theory  of  Good  and 
Evil,  I,  Pt.  I,  chap,  i:;. 


148  Conscience  and  Christ 

His  typical,  startling,  paradoxical  illustrations  of  the 
principle  which  should  govern  the  treatment  of 
injuries  by  His  followers,  we  simply  do  not  know,  and 
cannot  know.  But  we  have  enough  evidence  to  indi- 
cate that  our  Lord  Himself  did  not  intend  His  precepts 
to  be  taken  with  the  deadly  literalness  which  Western 
minds,  bent  either  on  a  too  Uteral  imitation  of  the  out- 
ward accidents  of  the  Master's  life  on  the  one  hand, 
or  anxious  to  represent  them  as  obsolete  and  impractic- 
able on  the  other,  have  been  disposed  to  take  them. 
The  most  unsympathetic  modem  critic  of  Christ's  utter- 
ances will  not  seriously  contend  that  our  Lord  meant 
that  men  were  to  mutilate  themselves  in  order  to 
observe  His  precept  about  the  offending  member,  or 
that  He  who  bade  us  love  all  men  really  meant  that 
His  followers  should  hate — in  the  ordmary  sense  of 
the  word  "  hate  " — father  and  mother  and  child,  or 
that  forgiveness  was  to  cease  after  490  offences.  ^  So 
to  interpret  Christ  is  to  reduce  His  teaching  to  a  mass 
of  inconsistent,  self-contradictory  nonsense.  He  de- 
clared that  to  call  a  brother  fool  might  be  as  bad  as 
murder:  yet  He  is  recorded  once  at  least  to  have 
used  the  word  Himself,*  and  on  other  occasions  used 
language  of  equal  vehemence  and  severity.   He  forbade 

*  It  is  rather  tempting  to  add  that  in  accepting  the  High-Priest's 
adjurations  (Matt.  xxvi.  63,  64)  Jesus  gave  evidence  on  oath  before  a 
court  of  Justice.  But  the  High-Priest's  "  I  adjure  thee  by  the  hving 
God  "  is  omitted  in  Mark  xiv.  6i  and  Luke  xxii.  67,  and  after  all 
the  "  thou  hast  said  "  need  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  speaker 
accepted  the  adjuration. 

*  Matt,  xxiii.  17.    Cf.  Luke  xi.  40 ;  Luke  xxiv.  25. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     149 

men  to  resist  evil :  yet  His  driving  out  the  oxen  from 
the  Temple,  and  overthrowing  the  tables  of  the  money- 
changers were  acts  of  physical  force.  ^  The  language 
which  He  uses  towards  the  Pharisees  or  in  speaking  of 
them  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  our  Lord 
condemned  all  self-assertion,  all  vehemence  of  ex- 
pression, all  manifestations  of  hostility  against  the 
oppressor,  the  wrong-doer,  the  dishonourer  of  God.^ 
If  we  are  to  regard  as  part  of  our  Lord's  real  teaching 
the  injunction  to  take  complaints  to  the  Church  or 
Christian  Assembly,  to  abide  by  their  decision  and  to 
treat  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican  the  unrepentant 
Christian  offender  against  his  brother,  those  words 
sanction  the  principle  of  organized  social  resentment. 
It  is  practically  certain,  indeed,  on  critical  grounds » 
that  we  have  here  a  development,  an  application  of 
Christ's  teaching— a  quite  legitimate  application  in  the 

^  It  is  just  conceivable  that  our  Lord  may  even  have  thought 
seriously  of  using — not  against  an  armed  band,  but  against  the 
attack  of  an  asscissin — the  weapons  which,  according  to  Luke  xxii.  38, 
He  directed  His  disciples  to  procure.  More  probably  the  words  were 
*'  a  piece  of  ironical  foreboding "  (Burkitt,  The  Gospel  History 
and  its  Transmission,  p.  141)  which  a  disciple  took  literally.  The 
"it  is  enough  "  will  then  mean :  **  Drop  that  idea :  my  words 
were  not  meant  seriously." 

*  Of  course  it  is  possible  (with  Mr.  Montefiore)  to  condemn  the 
language  used  by  our  Lord  against  the  Pharisees.    See  below,  p.  179. 

^  Matt,  xviii.  17.  The  words  are  found  in  a  section  which  has  no 
parallel  in  the  other  Sjmoptists,  and  is  exactly  of  the  same  type  as 
not  a  few  other  sections  peculiar  to  the  first  Gospel,  passages  referring 
to  and  intended  to  support  the  ecclesiastical  institutions  which  had 
been  developed  by  the  time  the  Gospel  was  written.  St.  Luke 
(xvii.  3)  has :  "  Take  heed  to  yourselves  ;  if  thy  brother  sin,  re- 
buke him;  and  if  he  repent  forgive  him"  (R.V.).  This  is  no 
doubt  much  nearer  to  what  our  Lord  actually  said. 


150  Conscience  and  Christ 

circumstances  of  the  early  Christian  community^ — 
but  not  an  actual  saying  of  the  Master.  Even  the 
words  "  if  he  repent,  forgive  him  "  are  by  themselves 
a  serious  qualification  of  the  principle  that  forgiveness 
is  to  be  unlimited.  Even  the  command  to  forgive  to 
seven  times  in  a  day  is  confined  to  the  cases  in  which 
there  is  repentance. 

(3)  Another  detailed  criticism  of  the  same  order  repre- 
sents our  Lord  as  hostile  to  the  institution  of  property, 
as  teaching  a  kind  of  Communism  or  complete  self- 
renunciation  in  the  matter  of  worldly  goods.  This 
suggestion  is  founded  chiefly  upon  the  words  to  the  rich 
young  man,  "  If  thou  wouldest  be  perfect,  go,  sell  that 
thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor  "  (Matt.  xix.  21).  Now 
here,  in  addition  to  the  considerations  we  have  already 
dwelt  on,  we  must  remember  this  fact,  which  is  very 
essential  for  the  imderstanding  of  Christ's  teaching — 
that  when  Christ  called  men  to  "  follow  "  Him,  He 
did  not  mean  merely  that  they  should  accept  His 
teaching  and  endeavour  to  practise  it  in  their  Uves. 
He  was  calling  upon  certain  of  His  disciples  to  devote 
themselves  to  His  great  missionary  enterprise,  to 
join  Him  in  going  about  the  world  to  preach  the  coming 
of  the  Kingdom.  It  is  to  such  men  that  the  severer 
injunctions  of  the  Gospel  pages  are  addressed — to  take 
nothing  for  their  journey,  save  a  staff  only,  no  bread, 
no  wallet,  no  money  in  their  purse,  but  to  go  shod 

'  And  yet  perhaps  **  Jtsas  would  hardly  have  spoken  so  harshly 
of  the  '  tmx-collector.' "    MoDtefiore.  Syn.  Gospels,  II,  681. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     151 

with  sandals^  and  the  Uke.  The  precepts  form  part  not 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  but  of  what  is  sometimes 
called  the  great  ministerial  commission.  Even  the 
words  about  hating  father  and  mother  may  have  been 
intended  for  those  who  received  this  commission.  ^  To 
become  a  disciple  of  Christ  in  the  strictest  sense  meant 
no  doubt  to  join  Him  in  His  missionary  work.  Many 
of  these  injunctions  have,  of  course,  an  application  to 
all  who  would  be  in  our  modem  sense  of  the  word 
followers  of  Christ,  believers  in  His  Gospel,  members 
of  His  Church ;  but  in  their  immediate  and  primary 
signification,  they  were  addressed  to  His  Missionaries, 
not  to  all  His  hearers.  In  the  conditions  of  the  time 
to  make  such  a  complete  renunciation  of  worldly 
goods,  to  take  up  something  like  the  life  of  a  mendicant 
friar,  was  probably  the  most  effective,  perhaps  the  only, 
way  of  carrying  on  the  work  which  He  felt  called  upon 
to  do,  of  communicating  to  mankind  the  good  news 
which  He  knew  Himself  divinely  commissioned  to  im- 
part. Here  for  once  the  anticipation  of  the  immediate 
Parousia  may  be  allowed  to  have  influenced  the  specific 
advice  given  by  Jesus  to  His  hearers.  And  yet,  after 
all,  he  surely  would  be  a  bold  man  who  would  seriously 
pretend  that  he  knew  a  way  of  proclaiming  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven,  or  the  eternal  truths  which  were  for  Jesus 

^  Mark  vi.  8,  9  (Matt.  x.  9,  10 ;  Luke  ix.  3.  There  are  con- 
siderable variations  in  detail). 

*  They  are  addressed  "  to  the  multitudes  "  (Luke  xiv.  25-6),  but 
they  refer  to  him  who  would  be  Christ's  "  disciple."  TheMatthean 
equivalent  (in  a  weakened  form)  is  in  the  Commission  to  the  Twelve 
(x.  37). 


152  Conscience  and  Christ 

enshrined  in  that  conception,  that  would  have  suc- 
ceeded better  than  the  way  actually  adopted  by  Him. 
The  advice  was  not  given  to  all  His  hearers — still  less 
to  all  mankind — but  to  those  whom  He  called  or  who 
felt  themselves  called  to  this  special  work.^  Jesus 
never  makes  such  complete  renunciation  necessary  as 
a  condition  of  entrance  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 
He  warmly  conunended  the  charity  and  honesty  of 
Zaccheus,  who,  imder  the  influence  of  His  preaching, 
resolved  to  restore  fourfold  to  the  particular  persons 
whom  he  had  wronged  and  to  give  half  of  his  remaining 
goods  to  the  poor.*  "  To-day  is  salvation  come  to  this 

'  This  limitatioQ  may  be  thought  inconsistent  with  the  words : 
"  So  therefore  whosoever  he  be  of  yoo  that  rcnonnceth  not  all  that 
be  hath,  cannot  be  my  disciple  "  (Luke  xiv.  33).  The  words  need  not 
nacesiarily  mean  more  than  the  words  of  the  preceding  verse  (26): 
"  If  any  man  cometh  nnto  Me.  and  hateth  not  his  own  father  and 
mother,  and  wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea.  and 
his  own  life  also,  he  caoDOt  be  My  disciple,"  which  no  one  will 
understand  with  absolute  literalness — as  an  injunction  to  cruelty 
or  self-destruction.  It  may  be  understood  as  recommending  com- 
plete "  detachment "  from  worldly  goods  as  from  family  ties. 
Or  more  historically  it  may  be  taken  as  referring  literally  to  disciples 
in  the  full  sense — those  called  to  join  the  missionary  band.  The 
saying  immediately  follows  the  parables  of  the  man  building  a  town 
and  the  King  going  to  war  with  another  King.  It  occurs  in  Luke 
only.  Many  of  the  strong  layingi  aboat  wealth  peculiar  to  Luke 
are  probably  genuine,  but  these  particular  words  (xiv.  33)  may  very 
well  be  suspected  of  being  Luke's  amplification  of  the  saying  about 
renouncing  father  and  mother — his  way  of  pointing  the  moral  of 
the  preceding  paragraphs.  Loisy  calls  it  "  une  addition  redaction- 
alia."  Cf.  the  same  writer  on  Luke  xiv.  26 :  "  Ce  sacrifice  est 
impost  k  qoi  vent  '  suivre  '  J6sus.  et  il  n'est  dit  aucunement 
que  Ton  puisse  avoir,  sans  le  '  suivre.'  une  part  assur^e  dans  le 
royaume  "  {Evan.  Syn.,  I,  894). 

*  Luke  xix.  9.  The  fourfold  restitution  was  required  by  the 
Mosaic  Law  in  certain  cases  of  theft,  in  others  double  restitution 
(Exod.  xxii.  1.4). 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     153 

house,  forasmuch  as  he  also  is  a  son  of  Abraham." 
We  must  not,  of  course,  allow  this  consideration  to 
prevent  our  seeking  to  penetrate  to  the  eternal 
principle  implied  in  the  advice  to  the  rich  young  man. 
The  meaning  of  what  our  Lord  said  was  surely  this : 
"  If  you  want  to  do  the  best  thing  in  the  world,  sell 
all  that  you  have  and  give  to  the  poor,  and ''  (it  is 
no  doubt  impUed)  "  come  and  join  my  missionary  band, 
and  preach  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom/'  He  went 
away  sorrowful,  we  are  told — not  because  an  en- 
lightened political  economy  had  told  him  that  this 
renunciation  would  not  be  the  best  thing  he  could  do, 
not  because  he  doubted  whether  it  would,  if  generally 
imitated,  be  conducive  to  the  true  good  of  humanity, 
or  because  he  felt  a  call  to  other  work  which  could 
better  be  done  with  his  possessions  than  without  them, 
but  simply  because  "  he  had  great  possessions/'  Was 
our  Lord  wrong  in  saying  that  the  reason  why  the 
rich  young  man  would  not  give  up  his  possessions  was 
that  he  was  too  fond  of  them,  that  he  had  not  love 
enough  to  make  the  sacrifice  ?  Was  He  wrong  in 
saying  that  that  is  not  the  ideal  of  perfect  love,  or 
that  such  an  ideal  of  love  and  devotion  should  be  striven 
after?! 

1  It  is  important  to  notice  that  the  words  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself/'  which  in  Matthew  are  included  in  the  com- 
mandments which  the  young  man  had  kept  from  his  youth,  are 
absent  in  Mark  and  Luke.  If  they  are  omitted,  it  is  clear  that  he 
was  satisfied  with  bare  compliance  with  the  negative  commands  of 
the  Decalogue.  Not  only  was  his  love  imperfect:  he  had  hardly 
shown  any  positive  love  at  all. 


154  Conscience  and  Christ 

What,  it  may  be  asked,  is  the  application  of  this 
principle  to  those  who  in  modem  times  would  accept 
the  principle  of  Christ's  teaching  ?  Surely  it  is  per- 
fectly true  that  so  long  as  a  man  is  not  willing,  if  and 
so  far  as  he  sees  it  to  be  for  the  good  of  his  fellow-men, 
to  renounce  all  woridly  possessions  in  order  to  serve 
them,  he  is  morally  imperfect.  It  does  not  follow  that 
in  the  existing  state  of  human  society  the  renunciation 
of  all  worldly  possessions  is  the  best  way  for  serving 
our  brethren  which  is  open  to  all  of  us.  There  are  ways 
in  which  those  who  have  love  enough,  and  who  feel 
the  call  to  do  so,  may  serve  their  brethren  most  effec- 
tively by  literally  seUing  all  their  goods  and  giving 
to  the  poor,  or  more  probably  by  renouncing  most  of 
the  ordinary  luxuries  and  comforts  of  well-to-do  life 
and  devoting  life  and  income  to  the  service  of  humanity 
in  ways  that  are  economically  sound — that  is  to  say, 
ways  which  really  do  benefit  the  recipients  in  the  long 
run.  It  does  not  follow  that  this  is  the  best  thing  for 
all,  or  even  for  all  who  have  the  wiUingness  to  do  it. 
To  love  our  neighbours  enough  to  be  willing  to  make 
this  sacrifice  for  them  is  part  of  the  Christian  ideal  for 
all :  the  duty  for  each  is  to  make  that  use  of  his 
possessions  which,  he  being  what  he  is,  circumstances 
being  what  they  are,  will  enable  him  to  do  the  best 
service  for  his  fellow-men — the  particular  service  to 
which  he  is  called.  Some  even  of  those  who  have  the 
love  may  not  be  called  to  the  more  exacting  kind  of 
self-renunciation  :  still  more  often  those  whose  love  is 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     155 

as  yet  very  imperfect.  The  actual  words,  *'  If  thou  wilt 
be  perfect/'  may  be  an  addition  of  the  first  EvangeUst, 
but  it  fairly  represents  our  Lord's  probable  meaning, 
and  points  to  the  eternally  true  and  important  prin- 
ciple of  Vocation.  All  are  called  to  the  loving  service 
of  their  fellow-men :  not  all  are  called  to  serve  in  the 
same  way.  All  modes  of  service  imply  self-denial  and 
sacrifice,  but  not  all  imply  equal  self-sacrifice.  At  all 
periods  of  the  world's  history  some  men  are  called  to 
sacrifices  as  great  and  as  literal  as  that  which  was  set 
before  the  rich  young  man,  but  not  all  men.^  '*  Let 
each  man  do  as  he  purposeth  in  his  heart,  not  grudgingly 
or  of  necessity,  for  God  loveth  a  cheerful  giver " 
(2  Cor.  ix.  7).  That  is  a  Pauline  principle,  which  is  as 
full  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  as  it  is  of  practical  wisdom 
and  good  sense. 

I  may  not  linger  on  the  wider  social  application  of 
Christ's  teaching  about  Property.  To  say  that  Jesus 
was  a  Socialist  is,  of  course,  as  unhistorical  as  to  say 
that  He  condemned  Socialism  or  taught  that  *'  Religion 
has  nothing  to  do  with  politics."  The  principle  which 
underlies  all  His  teaching  about  Property  is  simply 
this — ^that  wealth  should  be  treated  as  completely 
subordinate  to  the  higher  ends  of  human  life,  not  only 
for  the  individual  himself,  but  for  the  whole  com- 
munity.    What  is  the  best  way  under  existing  con- 

*  For  further  discussion  of  the  problem,  which  at  bottom  in- 
volves the  question  of  "  Works  of  Supererogation,"  I  may  refer 
to  my  Theory  of  Good  and  Evil,  Book  II,  chap.  iv. 


156  Conscience  and  Christ 

ditions  of  apportioning  the  enjoyment  of  the  wealth 
which  is  created  by  the  common  labour  is  the  most 
important  problem  which  it  is  incumbent  upon  Chris- 
tians of  the  present  age  to  work  out.  They  must  work 
it  out  in  the  spirit  of  the  Master's  teaching.  But  they 
will  not  find  in  His  express  words  any  detailed 
guidance  for  its  solution.  The  one  thing  which  we  can 
say  with  absolute  confidence  is  that  the  present  dis- 
tribution of  wealth,  and  the  use  made  of  the  wealth 
which  they  call  their  own  by  most  rich  men,  would  have 
caused  His  sternest  and  most  uncompromising  con- 
demnation. Many  considerations  may  be  urged  in 
favour  of  a  social  system  which  allows  some  inequality 
in  the  distribution  of  wealth  ;  many  considerations 
of  social  utiUty  may  be  urged  in  favour  of  individuals 
allowing  themselves  more  enjoyment  and  indulgence 
than  on  a  system  of  anything  like  equal  distribution 
would  be  possible  for  all;  but  we  may  be  quite 
certain  that  now  as  ever  the  spirit  of  Christ,  no  less 
than  the  enlightened  Reason  of  mankind,  does  call 
for  a  much  more  rigid  Umitation  of  personal  expendi- 
ture on  the  part  even  of  people  whom  the  world  would 
hardly  call  rich  than  conventional  reUgious  teaching 
has  usually  insisted  upon. 

(4)  The  question  of  Property  leads  on  to  the  ques- 
tion of  Asceticism  in  general.  It  is  often  suggested 
by  the  wilder  kind  of  anti-Christian  writers  that  Christ 
taught  a  severe  and  morose  Asceticism  in  which  the 
modem  world  does  not  and  will  not  believe.     Now 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ      157 

here  I  do  not  think  the  objector  has  even  a  plausible 
case.  Our  knowledge  of  Christ  and  His  teaching  is 
undoubtedly  incomplete  and  fragmentary — that  is  a 
fact  often  forgotten  both  by  ardent  Christians  and  by 
sceptical  critics.  But,  if  there  is  one  thing  about  Jesus 
which  is  made  perfectly  certain  by  all  the  records 
which  we  have  about  Him,  it  is  this — that  He  did  not 
encourage  Asceticism  in  its  stricter  sense,  either  by  His 
teaching  or  by  His  practice.  The  hardships  which  He 
endured  and  enjoined  upon  others  were  the  hardships 
that  were  incidental  to  His  mission  and  His  work  : 
their  motive  was  simply  love  of  His  fellow-men. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  the  idea  that  self- 
inflicted  suffering  is  well-pleasing  to  God,  or  that  it 
possesses  any  expiatory  virtue  for  the  doing  away 
of  sin,  or  that  all  innocent  enjoyment  is  wrong.  There 
is  not  even  any  encouragement  of  voluntary  suffering, 
in  the  shape  for  instance  of  fasting,  as  a  means  of  dis- 
cipHning  or  strengthening  character.  The  constant 
reproach  hurled  against  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  by 
the  religious  world  of  His  day  was  that  He  was  not 
ascetic.  *'  Whereunto  shall  I  Uken  this  generation  ? 
It  is  Uke  unto  children  sitting  in  the  market-places 
which  call  unto  their  fellows  and  say.  We  piped  unto 
you,  and  ye  did  not  dance;  we  wailed  and  ye  did 
not  mourn.  For  John  came  neither  eating  nor 
drinking,  and  they  say.  He  hath  a  devil.  The  Son 
of  man  came  eating  and  drinking,  and  they  say. 
Behold  a  gluttonous  man,  and  a  wine-bibber,  a  friend 


158  Conscience  and  Christ 

of  publicans  and  sinners."*  "Why  do  the  disciples 
of  John  and  of  the  Pharisees  fast,  but  Thy  disciples 
fast  not  ?  "^  Our  Lord  accepted  invitations  to  dinner 
with  rich  tax-gatherers.  Even  those  who  are  most 
sceptical  about  the  historical  value  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  may  at  least  accept  the  story  of  the  marriage 
in  Cana  as  showing  that  there  was  nothing  in  the 
early  traditions  about  His  Ufe  which  would  make  His 
presence  on  such  an  occasion  seem  incongruous  or 
improbable.  The  argument  from  silence  is  not  here  the 
precarious  argument  that  it  sometimes  is.  The  legends 
which  grow  up  about  a  religious  teacher,  particularly 
in  the  East,  delight  to  represent  him  as  exceeding 
other  men  in  Asceticism.  Both  the  Jews*  and  the 
early  Christians  believed  in  Asceticism,  though  in 
both  cases  only  to  a  moderate  extent  as  compared  with 
the  ideas  of  other  oriental  Religions  or  of  the  later 
Christian  Church.  Had  our  Lord  favoured  Asceticism, 
His  utterances  on  this  head  are  just  those  that  would 
most  certainly  have  been  reported.  If  therefore,  when 
critically  examined,  the  records  of  His  life  and  teaching 
do  not  support  the  charge  of  Asceticism,  we  may  be 
quite  sure  that  there  were  no  such  utterances  to  report. 
It  is  true  that  legend  has  begun,  even  in  the  Canoni- 
cal Gospels,  or  in  the  received  text  of  them,  to  impart 
an  ascetic  tinge  to  His  teaching  and  practice,  but 

»  Ifatt.  xi.  17-19  (  =  Lukc  vii.  31-4). 

•  Blark  U.  18  (:«Matt.  ix.  14  ;  Luke  v.  33). 

*  The  Pharisees  encouraged  the  bi-weekly  fast,  but  there  was  in 
the  Jews  no  tendency  to  favour  ceUbacy. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     159 

criticism  has  here  done  a  valuable  service  in  enabling 
us  to  detect  its  operations.  Mere  criticism  of  the  text 
shows  that  our  Lord  did  not  say,  "  This  kind  can 
come  forth  by  nothing  but  by  prayer  and  fasting  " 
(Mark  ix.  29) :  in  the  R.V.  you  will  find  that  the  words 
"  and  fasting  "  have  disappeared.  In  the  case  of  the 
forty  days'  fast  in  the  wilderness,  we  have  to  go  behind 
the  actual  text,  and  apply  the  methods  of  historical 
criticism.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  story  grew  up.  In 
the  first  Gospel,  it  is  true,  we  read  that  "  when  He  had 
fasted  forty  days  and  forty  nights,  He  afterward 
hungered.''  But  in  the  second  Gospel  we  find  what 
surely  represents  the  earlier  tradition :  "  He  was  in  the 
wilderness  forty  days  tempted  of  Satan.''^  In  St. 
Luke's  version  also  it  is  the  temptation  which  lasts 
forty  days,  though  that  Evangelist  goes  on  to  say 
that  "  He  did  eat  nothing  in  those  days ;  and  when 
they  were  completed,  He  hungered."  Is  it  not  probable 
that  the  hunger  implied  by  the  first  temptation  sug- 
gested the  idea  that  the  forty  days  of  retirement  in 
the  wilderness  were  also  days  of  fasting  ?  And  after 
all  there  is  nothing  (especially  in  Luke's  version)  to 
suggest  that  the  abstinence  from  food  was  anything 

^  Matt.  iv.  2  ;  Mark  i.  13  ;  Luke  iv.  i,  2.  I  do  not  think  the 
probability  of  this  view  is  lessened  by  the  suggestion  that  Matthew 
and  Luke  used  Q,  and  that  Q  is  in  general  earlier  than  Mark.  If 
Mark  used  Q,  the  absence  of  the  words  about  fasting  makes  it 
doubtful  whether  they  stood  in  his  version  of  Q.  Luke's  version 
of  Q  does  not  suggest  '  fasting  *  as  a  piece  of  deliberate  ascetism. 
If  Mark  did  not  here  use  Q,  it  will  hardly  be  denied  that  in  a 
particular  case  Mark  may  represent  the  more  primitive  tradition. 


i6o  Conscience  and  Christ 

but  the  natural  consequence  of  retirement  to  a  food- 
less  region. 

When  we  have  got  rid  of  these  allusions  to  fasting 
which  reflect  the  Asceticism  of  a  later  age,  there 
remain  two  genuine  allusions  to  the  practice.  The  first 
is  the  merely  incidental  allusion  in  the  Matthean  version 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount :  "  When  ye  fast,  be  not, 
as  the  hypocrites,  of  a  sad  countenance  .  .  .  but  thou 
when  thou  fastest,  anoint  thy  head  and  wash  thy  face  ; 
that  thou  be  not  seen  of  men  to  fast,  but  of  thy  Father 
which  is  in  secret ;  and  thy  Father,  which  seeth  in 
secret,  shall  recompense  thee."  ^  Here  it  is  undoubtedly 
assumed  that  some  of  our  Lord's  hearers  were  in  the 
habit  of  fasting,  just  as  it  is  assumed  that  they  would 
be  taking  gifts  to  the  altar  in  the  Temple.  There  is 
no  emphasis  on  the  practice,  no  express  command  to 
fast,  but  there  is  also  no  declared  hostility.  Not  so  in 
the  teaching  about  the  new  wine  and  the  old  bottles.  ^ 
It  seems  to  me  impossible  to  deny  that  our  Lord  had 
by  this  time  come  to  realize  that  fasting — at  least 
fasting  in  obedience  to  definite  ecclesiastical  injunctions 
at  frequent  intervals — was  not  congenial  to  the  spirit 
of  the  new  gospel  of  the  Kingdom  which  He  was  pro- 
claiming. »    It  belonged  to  the  old  system  of  rites  and 

^  Matt.  vi.  i6,  17.  The  saying  has  no  parallel  in  Luke,  who 
would  certainly  have  had  no  bias  against  fasting.  He  might,  how- 
ever, have  omitted  the  saying  because  it  was  directed  against  a 
kind  of  hypocrisy  which  was  not  common  among  Gentiles. 

•  Matt.  ix.  15-16  :   Mark  ii.  19-22  ;   Luke  v.  33-39. 

•  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Law  of  MoMS  prescribed  but 
one  fast  in  the  year — the  Great  Day  of  Atonoment. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     i6i 

ceremonies,  not  to  the  new  religion  of  the  heart  and 
the  life  which  He  was  preaching.  There  remains  the 
difficulty  of  interpreting  the  words,  "  But  the  days  will 
come  when  the  Bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away  from 
them,  and  then  will  they  fast  in  those  days/'  The 
easiest  and  most  obvious  way  of  understanding  these 
words  is  to  suppose  them  to  mean  **  Fasting  is  a 
natural  expression  of  sorrow,  and  is  therefore  unsuit- 
able now/'  We  must  remember  that  with  Orientals 
fasting  was  practised  not  merely  as  a  religious  observ- 
ance, but  as  a  sign  of  mourning  :  it  was  the  usual 
accompaniment  of  rending  the  garments.  You  will 
recall  the  surprise  of  David's  servants  at  his  eating  and 
drinking  after  his  son's  death.  Our  Lord's  meaning 
may  then  be  '*  Fasting  will  come  as  a  natural  expres- 
sion of  sorrow  in  due  time,  when  the  Bridegroom  is 
taken  away  from  them."  It  is  even  possible,  on  the 
assumption  that  the  words  were  really  uttered  by 
Jesus,  that  He  was  not  thinking  of  literal,  intentional 
abstinence  from  food  at  all.  You  must  remember  the 
spirit  of  the  objection.  The  Pharisees  had  taunted  our 
Lord's  disciples  with  the  easy-going,  unexacting 
character  of  the  Religion  which  their  Master  preached. 
He  may  have  met  the  spirit  of  the  objection  by 
saying  :  *'  Don't  think  the  Religion  I  preach  is  an 
easy-going  Religion.  The  call  for  self-sacrifice  and 
suffering  has  not  come  yet,  but  it  will  come  in  due 
time.  My  disciples  will  have  plenty  to  endure  and 
plenty  of  calls  to  self-discipline  and  privation,  when 


i62  Conscience  and  Christ 

I  am  taken  away  from  them.  Then  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  demands  which  their  discipleship  makes  upon 
them,  though  they  assume  a  different  form,  are  not 
less  exacting  than  the  demands  which  John  and  the 
Pharisees  made  of  their  disciples."^  But  after  all,  I 
cannot  but  feel  that  the  words,  taken  in  any  natural 
sense,  are  so  diflScult  to  reconcile  with  the  previous 
saying  about  the  new  wine  and  the  old  bottles  that 
M.  Loisy  is  probably  right  in  suggesting  that  here,  too, 
we  have  an  addition  of  the  Evangelist,  reflecting  the 
growing  asceticism  of  the  later  Church. 

(5)  I  turn  to  another  aspect  of  the  ascetic  ideal, 
its  attitude  towards  Marriage.  Can  we  attribute  to 
our  Lord  any  sympathy  with  the  idea  that  virginity 
b  superior  to  marriage  ?  I  answer  emphatically  that 
we  cannot.  A  high  estimate  of  marriage  is  implied  in 
this  strict  rule  in  regard  to  its  j)ermanence.  How  then 
are  we  to  interpret  the  words  '*  there  be  eunuchs 
which  have  made  themselves  eunuchs  for  the  kingdom 
of  heaven's  sake.  He  that  is  able  to  receive  it,  let  him 
receive  it."  •  If  the  saying  be  genuine,  the  most  natural 
way  of  understanding  it  is  to  suppose  that  our  Lord 
meant  that  there  is  a  peculiar  blessedness  in  renouncing 
marriage  in  order  the  better  to  do  the  work  of  spread- 
ing the  Kingdom  of  God  among  men.  Even  under 
normal  conditions  there  are  many  kinds  of  spiritual 
or  social  work  which  are  best  undertaken  by  those 

*  Loby  remarks  that  our  Lord  did  not  usually  speak  of  His 
"  being  taken  away  from  them."    These  words  suggest  a  later  date. 

•  Matt,  xix  12. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     163 

who  are  willing  to  postpone  indefinitely,  or  even  totally 
to  renounce,  this  great  source  of  human  happiness. 
That  Jesus  might  have  suggested  to  His  disciples  the 
blessedness  of  making,  in  view  of  the  near  approach 
of  the  Kingdom,  such  a  sacrifice  as  He  had  made  Him- 
self is  quite  conceivable.  But  it  is  equally  possible 
that  this  may  be  one  of  the  numerous  passages 
peculiar  to  Matthew  which  are  due  to  the  ideas  of  a 
later  age,  the  days  of  an  organized  Christian  Church, 
a  more  ecclesiastical  spirit,  a  growing  respect  for 
celibacy.  Under  this  category  may  confidently  be 
placed  the  committal  of  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  to  St.  Peter,  the  saying  about  the  Church 
being  founded  upon  him,  the  command  to  bring 
quarrels  to  the  Church  to  be  decided,  and  many  others. 
The  saying  about  the  three  kinds  of  eunuchs  may  well 
belong  to  the  same  class  of  ecclesiastical  additions. 
A  parallel  but  stronger  instance  of  this  kind  of  ascetic 
development  may  be  found  in  the  saying  attributed  to 
Jesus  by  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians,  '*  I  came  to 
destroy  the  work  of  the  female  sex.''^ 

(6)  The  question  of  Asceticism  naturally  leads  on 
to  the  more  general  suggestion  that  Christ's  ideal  is 
one-sided  and  incomplete  because  it  preaches  the 
doctrine  of  self-denial,  self-sacrifice,  social  activity, 
and  says  nothing  about  that  other  side  of  the  moral 

*  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.  Ill,  c.  ix.  63.  The  tone  of  both  sayings 
has  a  certain  resemblance  to  the  collections  of  mystical  "  Logia  " 
of  our  Lord  which  have  recently  been  discovered,  and  few  of  these 
have  the  ring  of  genuineness. 


164  Conscience  and  Christ 

ideal  which  is  often  summed  up  in  the  word  self- 
development.  The  Gospel  says  nothing  about  the 
duty  of  self-culture,  about  the  value  of  intellectual 
activity,  or  of  intellectual  knowledge.  Two  points 
ought,  I  think,  to  be  unreservedly  admitted  about 
this  matter : 

(a)  There  is  this  other  side  to  a  true  ideal  of  human 
life.  Knowledge  and  the  contemplation  of  Beauty, 
intellectual  development  and  aesthetic  development, 
Culture  and  the  pleasures  connected  with  it,  are  part 
of  the  true  ideal  of  man.  They  are  among  the  best  and 
noblest  things  in  hiunan  life :  they  form  part  of  that 
good  which  the  ideal  man  should  promote  for  himself 
and  for  others.  They  are  far  higher  and  more  valuable 
than  mere  pleasure,  though  not  so  valuable  as  good- 
ness or  willingness  to  do  one's  duty.  Knowledge  is 
good,  but  love  is  better.  So  much  is  a  clear  dehver- 
ance»  as  it  seems  to  me,  of  the  enlightened  moral 
consciousness. 

(6)  It  must  be  admitted  that  Christ  did  not  ex- 
plicitly insist  on  this  side  of  the  moral  ideal.  There 
is,  indeed,  nothing  against  it.  Unlike  many  of  the 
sterner  moral  teachers,  the  prophets  of  righteousness 
or  enthusiasts  of  humanity,  our  Lord  never  depreciated 
intellect  or  culture  or  the  love  of  beauty.  There  are, 
indeed,  traces  of  the  love  of  natural  beauty  in  His 
teaching  :  "I  say  unto  you  that  even  Solomon  in 
all  his  glory  was  not  arrayed  hke  one  of  these.  "^    We 

^  Matt.  vi.  29  =  Luke  zii.27. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     165 

must  remember,  too,  that  our  Lord  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  only  literature  which  was  practically  within 
His  reach — the  Old  Testament  and  a  few  books 
belonging  to  the  post-canonical  literature  of  Judaism. 
Among  the  Jews  alone  in  the  ancient  world,  outside 
the  countries  affected  by  Buddhism,  was  there  a 
system  of  popular  education  :  and  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  implies  a  higher  culture — even  on  the  strictly 
intellectual  side — than  is  sometimes  admitted.  There 
is  no  opposition  to  Culture  in  our  Lord's  teaching  :  but 
it  is,  of  course,  vain  to  look  for  any  such  sense  of  the 
high  value  of  purely  intellectual  activity,  of  secular 
literature,  of  Art,  of  Science  and  Music  as  we  find 
in  the  literature  and  philosophy  of  Greece  and 
Rome. 

And  to  say  this  involves  the  admission  that  the 
ethical  teaching  of  Christ  does  require  development, 
and  that  it  can  only  be  accepted  as  a  final  and  perma- 
nent ideal  for  the  modern  world  on  the  understanding 
that  such  a  development  is  to  be  allowed.  The  mere 
scantiness  of  the  record  by  itself  involves  the  admission 
that  many  rules  of  conduct  are  necessary  for  the 
guidance  of  human  life  which  are  not  explicitly 
contained  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus — rules  that  were 
necessary  even  then,  and  others  that  have  become 
necessary  now.  Some  such  rules  are  simply  pre- 
supposed by  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  There  was  no 
need  to  speak  of  them  just  because  they  were  suffi- 
ciently  recognized   in   the   Old   Testament   and   the 


1 66  Conscience  and  Christ 

current  moral  teaching  of  the  time^ ;  and  others  must 
be  developed  out  of  His  teaching  if  it  is  to  be  made 
adequate  to  solving  the  actual  problems  of  a  modem 
Society.  The  very  idea  of  a  detailed  code  of  morals 
suitable  to  all  conditions  of  society  is  an  obvious 
absurdity  and  impossibility.  The  details  of  morality 
must  necessarily  vary  from  age  to  age. 

If  Jesus  had,  indeed,  put  forward  a  set  of  rules  which 
claimed  to  prescribe  in  detail  the  conduct  suitable  for 
all  nations,  all  classes  and  all  individuals  in  all  future 
periods  of  the  world's  history,  it  would  be  a  perfectly 
reasonable  thing  to  say  that  the  modem  world  could 
not  accept  such  a  code.  The  attempt  to  guide  our 
conduct  by  such  a  code  would  put  a  stop  to  all  social 
progress,  and  would  be  fatal  to  the  moral  life  itself, 
which  at  its  highest  impUes  that  men  should  be  con- 
tinually acting  upon  their  own  judgement,  using  their 
own  moral  and  intellectual  faculties,  basing  their  Uves 
upon  their  own  sense  of  right  and  wrong.  That  our 
Lord  never  attempted  to  communicate  to  the  world 
such  a  code  of  Ethics,  we  have  already  seen.  What 
He  did  was  to  lay  down  a  few  great  principles.  These 
principles,  I  have  contended,  do  appeal  to  the  moral 
consciousness  of  the  present  as  essentially  tme,  and 
as  the  foundation-stones  of  all  tme  MoraUty. 

In  detail  the  principles  require  infinite  expansion, 

^  Still  more  obvious  is  the  probability  that  what  would  be 
remembered  would  be  the  more  revolutionary  element  in  tlv 
Master's  teaching. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     167 

application,  development,  in  accordance  with  the 
growing  experience  of  the  race,  and  the  altered  needs 
and  circumstances  of  successive  ages.  To  effect  this 
development  is,  according  to  the  true  idea  of  it,  the 
work  of  the  Church  of  Christ — that  reUgious  com- 
munity which  should  be  the  highest  organized  expres- 
sion of  the  enlightened  Christian  consciousness  of  the 
time.^  The  development  began  so  early  that  the  most 
minute  criticism  can  hardly  draw  the  line  with  precision 
between  the  authentic  utterances  of  the  Master  and 
the  development  which  they  received  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  Church.  Belief  in  the  continuous  activity 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  human  hearts  and  human 
society  is  the  necessary  complement  and  corrective  of 
the  doctrine  of  a  unique  Revelation  of  God  in  a  single 
historical  Personality.  Only  on  condition  that  that 
doctrine  is  firmly  held  and  duly  insisted  upon  can  it 
be  morally  healthy — as  I  believe  that,  subject  to  that 
condition,  it  is  morally  healthy  and  expedient  in  the 
highest  degree— to  put  the  historical  Christ  in  the 
centre  of  our  ethical  as  well  as  of  our  reUgious  Ufe,  and 
to  make  the  imitation  and  the  following  of  Christ  into 

^  Father  Tyrrell,  after  noticing  the  authority  which  may  be 
claimed  by  any  good  man,  goes  on  to  say,  "  Such  too  in  kind, 
though  indefinitely  greater  in  degree,  is  the  authority  of  the  Church, 
that  is,  of  the  Saints  and  of  all  good  men  gathered  round  and 
organised  into  one  society  under  Christ,  the  Incarnation  of  Con- 
science. It  is  as  the  formulation  of  their  collective  experience  that 
Catholic  teaching  commends  itself  to  my  reverence  and  assiduous 
meditation"  {Essays  on  Faith  and  Immortality,  p.  22).  No  words 
could  better  express  the  right  relation  between  the  three  great 
authorities — Conscience,  Clirist,  the  Church. 


i68  Conscience  and  Christ 

the  supreme  concrete  expression  of  our  ethical  ideaJ. 
The  Christian  Church  has  accepted  and  expressed  that 
principle  by  making  belief  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  in 
a  Holy  Catholic  Church  into  articles  of  its  Creed  side 
by  side  with  beUef  in  an  historic  Son  of  God.  ^ 

^  "  La  Vie  de  J6sua  et  I'Histoire  de  la  redaction  des  ^vangiles 
•OQt  deux  sujets  qui  ae  p6n6trent  de  telle  sorte  qu'il  laut  Iniwwir 
entre  enx  la  limite  ind^cise,  au  risque  de  parattre  se  contradire. 
En  rtelit6  cette  contradktioo  est  de  peu  de  ooosequence.  J^sus 
est  le  veritable  Cr6ateur  de  r£vangile ;  Jteos  a  tout  fait,  mtoie 
ce  qu'on  lui  a  pr^t^ :  sa  l^ende  et  lui-mtoie  sont  inseparables : 
il  fut  tenement  identifi^  avec  son  id^,  que  son  id6e  devint  lui- 
mdme,  Tabeorba,  fit  de  son  biographie  ce  qu'elle  devait  6tre 
(Renan.  Lss  EvangiUs,  p.  204) .  The  passage  is  quoted  with  appzx>val 
by  Mr.  Mootefiore,  Syn.  GaspiU,  I,  p.  lix. 


ADDITIONAL    NOTE    ON    SOME    DETAILED 

OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  MORAL  TEACHING 

OF   CHRIST 

It  may  be  well  at  this  point  briefly  to  examine  a  few  of 
the  minor  and  more  detailed  objections  which  are  made  in 
various  quarters  to  the  ethical  teaching,  and  in  some  cases 
the  character,  of  our  Lord  : 

(i)  The  Unjust  Steward  (Luke  xvi.  i-8) .  The  author  of  The 
Diary  of  a  Church-goer  writes  (p.  211) :  '*  Which  of  us  has  not 
been  conscious  of  something  Hke  a  gulp  in  accepting  the 
parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward  ?  If  the  fraud  of  the  Steward 
is  not  approved  it  is  certainly  not  reprobated.  We  are  left 
with  an  uneasy  consciousness  that  we  are  invited  to  admire 
the  clever  trick  of  escaping  suffering  through  the  success  of 
a  dishonest  manoeuvre."  It  seems  to  me  that  this  objection 
entirely  misses  the  point  of  the  parable.  That  point,  as 
I  take  it,  is  just  what  is  expressed  by  our  Lord  Himself  in 
the  words  ''  The  children  of  this  world  are  in  their  genera- 
tion wiser  than  the  children  of  light '' ;  they  show  in  the 
pursuit  of  their  selfish  and  worldly  ends  a  contrivance, 
a  foresight,  a  common  sense  which  the  men  of  better 
intentions  and  higher  aspirations  too  often  fail  to  show  in 
the  pursuit  of  their  higher  ends.  It  is  probable  that  the 
words  were  spoken  by  our  Lord  with  more  or  less  special 
reference  to  the  use  of  wealth  for  purposes  of  Almsgiving. 
Wealth  spent  in  this  way  will  meet  with  its  due  reward  in 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  Certainly  this  is  what  was 
intended  by  the  Evangelist,  who  adds  to  it  a  number  of 

169 


170  Conscience  a  fid  Christ 

sayings,  perhaps  originally  indq>endent,  on  the  same 
subject :  "  Make  to  yourselves  friends  out  of  the  mammon  of 
unrighteousness  "  (Luke  xvi.  9),  etc.  Wealth  may  be  used 
in  such  a  way  as  to  secure  something  much  better  and 
more  durable  than  wealth.  Our  Lord  would  hardly, 
perhaps,  have  thought  of  asking  whether  this  reward — the 
"  everlasting  habitations  " — was  to  consist  in  goodness 
or  in  happiness :  had  He  asked  it,  it  would  (if  we  may 
judge  from  His  general  teaching)  have  said  "  both."  If 
happiness  is  not  a  worthless  thing,  is  there  anything  to 
object  to  in  such  teaching  as  this  ?  On  the  whole  subject 
of  our  Lord's  teaching  about  reward  and  pimishment,  see 
Appendix  H. 

(2)  The  parable  of  the  HousehoUer  (Matthew  xx.  1-15). 
The  same  writer  continues  :  "  In  the  parable  of  the  House- 
holder and  his  Servants  we  are  not  exposed  to  so  severe 
a  strain,  but  we  are  stiD  uncomfortable  at  the  apparent 
inequity  of  the  remimeration  of  the  labourers.  We 
do  not  allow,  in  judging  the  conduct  of  our  fellows 
to-day,  that  the  plea  of  contract  is  an  answer  to  all 
complaints  ;  whilst  the  doctrine  involved  in  the  question 
*  Is  it  not  lawful  for  me  to  do  what  I  v,i]l  with  mine  own  ?  ' 
is  repudiated  altogether  as  inconsistent  >^'ith  the  obUga- 
tions  of  morality  which  bind  us  in  the  disposition  of  what 
is  legally  wholly  under  our  control."  The  author  goes  on 
to  say  (p.  212) :  "  Enough  of  these  captious  criticisms. 
Let  them  be  so  called.  I  have  no  pleasure  in  them.  Their 
strength  Ues  in  the  claim  of  flawless  perfection  which 
provokes  them,  and  against  which  a  single  fault  is  fatal. 
Considered  by  themselves,  they  are  insignificant:  they  are 
lost  in  the  beauty  and  the  loveliness  which  break  through 
the  narrative  of  acts  and  words  contained  in  the  Gospels." 
How  far  I  claim  "  flawless  perfection  "  for  the  teaching  of 
Christ  will  sufficiently  have  appeared  from  the  preceding 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ      171 

lectures.  Assuredly  there  is  nothing  in  this  parable  to 
detract  from  it.  Christ  was  not  thinking  of  the  question 
how  labourers  were  to  be  paid  or  of  any  other  economic 
problem.  What  he  was  denouncing  was  the  claim  that 
those  who  accepted  the  call  to  discipleship  earher  in  the 
day  should  have  a  reward  greater  than  those  who  accepted 
it  later.i  ("  What  shall  we  have,  therefore  ?  "  they  asked 
on  another  occasion.)  He  rebukes  the  commercial  view  of 
Morahty  which  this  spirit  impHed.  ''  God/'  He  tells  them, 
'*  does  no  wrong  by  offering  to  those  who  repent  at  a  later 
date  the  same  full  and  free  forgiveness  which  was  offered 
to  those  who  repented  and  became  disciples  earher."  ''  If 
you  insist  on  discussing  the  question  in  the  terms  of 
ordinary  commercial  justice/'  He  may  be  supposed  to 
suggest,  '*  this  involves  no  wrong  to  the  later  comers." 
Would  the  writer  really  insist  that  God  is  bound  to  pro- 
portion reward  in  this  life  or  the  next  exactly  to  the 
number  of  years  of  good  service  in  the  past,  and  not  to 
the  actual  and  present  moral  condition  of  the  person  ? 
Undoubtedly  there  are  questions  about  the  proper  reward 
of  labour  which  lay  wholly  beyond  our  Lord's  mental 
horizon  or  beyond  what  He  would  have  regarded  it  as 
His  province  to  deal  with — questions  as  to  which  it  would 
be  in  vain  to  look  for  guidance  in  His  teaching.  But  would 
the  writer  say  that,  even  in  the  light  of  the  coldest  modern 
economics,  an  employer  of  labour,  having  paid  to  his 
employee  the  stipulated  wage  (assuming  it  to  be  whatever 
we  understand  by  a  just  wage)  was  forbidden  voluntarily, 
out  of  profits  which  he  might  justly  have  retained,  to 
provide  a  club-house  which  should  be  open  equally  to  his 

^  It  may  be  that  the  Evangelist  means  to  suggest  that  the 
Gentile  was  now  spiritually  on  a  level  with  the  Jew.  Our  Lord,  so 
far  as  there  was  any  special  application  in  His  mind,  would  rather 
be  thinking  of  the  "  publicans  and  sinners  "  as  compared  with  the 
Pharisees  and  other  respectable  religious  persons. 


172  Conscience  and  Christ 

oldest  and  his  newest  employees  ?  If  a  body  of  modem 
workmen  were  to  make  such  conduct  the  motive  for  a 
strike,  I  feel  sure  that  the  author  of  The  Diary  of  a  Church- 
goer would  be  against  them.  Of  course  it  might  be  argued 
that  these  conventional  notions  about  Justice  and  Benevo- 
lence, about  money  which  I  am  botmd  to  pay  and  money 
with  which  I  may  do  what  I  Uke,  do  not  represent  the 
highest  moral  ideal ;  but  that  objection  can  hardly  be 
urged  by  those  who  insist  that  the  owner  of  the  Vineyard 
was  boimd  to  make  pay  exactly  equal  to  work  done.  If  we 
are  to  argue  the  matter  on  grounds  of  economic  justice, 
the  argument  of  the  owner  is  a  good  one  :  if  we  say  *'  these 
ideas  of  economic  justice  do  not  represent  the  highest 
Morality,"  then  the  objection  has  no  relevance :  the 
argument  was  addressed  to  people  who  accepted  these 
ideas,  and  had  never  heard  of  Socialism.  The  lesson  sought 
to  be  conveyed  is  simply  "  Admittance  to  the  privileges 
imphed  by  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  the  free  gift  of  God  : 
you  must  not  be  jealous  because  they  are  offered  to  others 
who  have  done  less  for  it,  as  you  think,  than  you  have 
yourself."  Would  the  writer  seriously  maintain  that  such 
jealousy  would  be  the  note  of  a  high  morality,  and  that 
a  man  who  had  gone  to  heaven  after  twenty  years  of  a 
good  Christian  hfe  would  be  justified  in  complaining  if  he 
found  someone  else  there  who  had  only  been  a  Christian 
for  ten  ?  After  all,  the  lesson  meant  to  be  taught  by  the 
parable  is  only  "  God  forgives  the  past  freely  when  there 
has  been  sincere  repentance :  the  Pharisee  must  not 
expect  a  higher  place  in  the  Kingdom  than  the  converted 
Publican."  Well  may  Loisy  remark :  '*  Au  fond  la 
parabole  est  la  meme  que  celle  du  Fils  prodigue."*  He 
^  Evan.  Syn.,  II.  229.  Loisy  regards  Matt.  xx.  16  ("So  the  la^ 
shall  be  first  and  the  first  last " — the  conclusion  of  the  verse  is 
omitted  by  the  best  MSS.)  as  a  saying  not  originally  connected 
with  the  parable  (found  also  in  Matt.  xxii.  14). 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     173 

adds  that  the  teaching  of  this  parable  must  be  balanced  by 
others  which  speak  of  higher  and  lower  places  in  the 
Kingdom  (e.g.  the  parable  of  the  talents,  Luke  xix.  11-27  ; 
Matt.  XXV.  14-30).  Mr.  Montefiore,  who  is  assuredly  no 
official  apologist,  pronounces  this  parable  "  one  of  the 
greatest  and  most  glorious  of  all.''^  Much  the  same 
lesson  is  taught  by  the  parable  of  the  Servant,  concluding 
with  the  words  "  Even  so  ye  also,  when  ye  shall  have  done  all 
the  things  that  are  commanded  you,  say.  We  are  un- 
profitable servants  ;  we  have  done  that  which  it  was  our 
duty  to  do "  (Luke  xvii.  10) — which  Mr.  Montefiore 
pronounces  to  be  *'  a  highly  noble,  notable  and  important 
passage.'* 

(3)  The  cursing  of  the  fig-tree  (Matt.  xxi.  19  ;  Mark 
xi.  12-14,  20).  The  same  writer  treats  the  cursing  of  the 
fig-tree  as  an  exhibition  of  "  petulance  '*  (p.  209).  There 
is  a  general  disposition  among  critics  to  regard  the  whole 
story  as  a  misunderstanding  or  materialization  of  the 
parable  of  the  fig-tree.  The  story  of  the  miracle  occurs  in 
Matthew  and  Mark :  and  is  omitted  in  Luke,  who  inserts 
the  parable  (xiii.  6,  7.  But  cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  32  ;  Mark  xiii. 
28).  Even  apart  from  this,  there  would  be  little  ground 
for  accepting  the  saying  by  anyone  who  rejected  the 
miracle,  and  surely  a  writer  who  so  freely  criticizes  the 
morality  of  Christ  is  not  likely  to  accept  as  historical  a 
miracle  of  this  character.  It  will  be  observed  that  in 
Matthew  the  miracle  is  exaggerated.  In  Mark  it  was  on 
the  return  journey  that  the  fig-tree  was  found  to  be 
withered  :   in  Matthew  it  withers  ''  immediately." 

(4)  The  cleansing  of  the  Temple.  Other  writers  have 
criticized  the  violent  cleansing  of  the  Temple.  Our  Lord's 
conduct  on  this  occasion  cannot  be  understood  without 
bearing  in  mind  His  conviction  that  He  was  the  Messiah  of 

^  Syn,  Gospels,  II,  700. 


174  Conscience  and  Christ 

His  nation.  It  is  impossible  here  to  discuss  the  exact 
sense  in  which  the  claim  was  made  or  the  grounds  which 
justified  the  claim  :*  it  is  enough  for  our  present  purpose  to 
assume  that  He  identified  Himself  in  some  sense  with  the 
Messiah  of  Jewish  prophecy  and  expectation.  As  such  He 
would  naturally  regard  Himself  as  free  to  act  in  the  way  in 
which  the  Messiah  was  represented  in  prophecy  as  acting. 
The  sight  of  the  profanation  would  remind  Him  of  the 
passage  in  Malachi  (iii.  1-3)  about  the  Lord  suddenly 
coming  to  His  Temple  and  purifying  the  sons  of  Levi. 
The  thought  would  occiu:  to  Him :  "  Is  not  someone  called 
upon  to  protest  against  these  things  ?  And  who  more  so 
than  I,  if  I  am  indeed  the  Messiah  ?  "  Nay,  might  not  any 
Jew,  conscious  of  a  divine  call  to  preadi  righteousness, 
conceive  that  he  was  justified  in  correcting  what  he 
regarded  as  a  flagrant  breach  of  the  Mosaic  Law  ?  Can  we 
say  that  such  a  one  was  not  justified  in  committing  what 
possibly  from  the  point  of  view  of  Roman  (hardly  perhaps 
of  Jewish)  Law  may  have  been  an  illegality,  as  a  means  of 
protesting  against  what  Jewish  Priests  and  Rabbis  must  in 
their  conscience  have  admitted  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
divine  Law  supposed  to  be  contained  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ?  That  the  rebuke  went  home,  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  the  interference  was,  for  the  moment,  quietly 
submitted  to  ;  though  it  was,  of  course,  the  act  which 
eventually  provoked  the  arrest  and  crucifixion.  As  an 
illustration  of  the  fact  that  "  Criticism  "  can  sometimes  be 
as  rash  in  its  assertions  as  Orthodoxy,  I  may  mention  that 
I  recently  read  an  otherwise  able  Unitarian  sermon  in 
which  it  was  assumed  that  the  '*  scourge  of  small  cords  " 
was  used  on  the  o\Miers  as  well  as  on  the  beasts.  Of  this, 
of  course,  there  is  no  suggestion  in  the  text,  and  it  is  ob- 
servable that  the  scourge  is  only  mentioned  in  the  fourth 
*  I  have  said  what  seemed  to  me  necewary  in  Lecture  II. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     175 

Gospel.  The  Synoptists  do  not  say  exactly  how  the 
dealers  were  "cast  out/'^ 

If  we  do  venture  to  conclude  (which  I  for  one  should  not 
do)  that  in  the  hght  of  full  knowledge  of  all  the  facts, 
the  course  adopted  by  Jesus  was  not  the  ideally  best  course, 
it  will  be  because :  {a)  in  the  hght  of  subsequent  events 
and  the  inspiration  vouchsafed  to  Christ's  Church,  we  are 
able  to  see  that  Jesus  was  Messiah  in  a  higher  sense  than 
the  prophets  conceived,  and  that  not  all  the  details  of 
prophecy  could  properly  be  taken  as  precedents  for  His 
action,  or  (b)  because  we  do  not  conceive  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Law  and  the  prophets  in  the  way  in  which  they 
were  commonly  understood  in  His  day,^  and  which  to 
some  extent — to  some  extent  only,  for  He  was  far  from 
giving  a  very  literal  interpretation  to  them — He  shared ; 
or  lastly  (c)  because  we  may  have  a  stronger  sense  of  the 
importance  of  social  order  in  matters  of  this  kind.  There 
was  nothing  in  the  spirit  or  motive  or  principle  of  His 
action  which  does  not  appeal  to  the  modern  conscience  as 
in  accordance  with  the  highest  Morality.  It  does  not 
follow,  of  course,  that  a  modern  man,  full  of  the  spirit  of 
Christ  and  thoroughly  accepting  the  principles  of  His 
action,  should  in  an  analogous  case  (so  far  as  there  can  be 
an  analogous  case)  act  in  precisely  the  same  manner. 

(5)  Alleged  harshness :  the  words  to  the  Syro-Phcenician 
woman  (Matt.  xv.  26 ;  Mark  vii.  27).  There  are  a  few 
cases  in  which  our  Lord  is  alleged  to  have  shown  a  harsh- 
ness not  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  His  own  teaching 

^  Matt.  xxi.  12 ;  Mark  xi.  15  ;  Luke  xix.  45 ;   John  ii.  15. 

*  Perhaps  we  ought  to  add  that  this  difference  would  carry 
with  it  some  conclusions  which  were  outside  of  our  Lord's  mental 
vision,  as  to  the  importance  of  civil  order  and  the  proper  relation 
of  the  civil  government  to  the  ecclesiastical.  But  we  must  remember 
that  the  police  of  the  Temple  belonged  to  the  Sanhedrin,  and  they 
were  both  a  religious  and  a  secular  authority,  basing  their  whole 
polity  upon  the  Old  Testament. 


176  Conscience  and  Christ 

at  its  best.  In  particular  there  are  the  words  addressed  to 
the  Syro-Phoenician  woman  :  "  It  is  not  meet  to  take  the 
children's  bread,  and  cast  it  to  the  dogs."  I  do  not  think 
that  here  we  can  quite  accept  the  conventional  explanation 
that  our  Lord  was  only  assiuning  the  tone  of  one  con- 
temptuously rejecting  the  woman's  petition  with  a  view 
to  a  trial  of  her  faith.  On  the  other  hand,  we  need  not  see 
in  them  a  piece  of  personal  harshness,  an  actual  defect  of 
character.  This  incident  may  possibly  represent  a  moment 
in  the  process  of  Jesus'  emancipation  from  the  ideas  of  His 
environment.  He  was,  as  it  were,  talking  aloud  to  Him- 
self. The  woman  asks  Jesiis  to  heal  her :  He  says :  "  Can 
it  be  really  part  of  the  Father's  will  that  I  should  use  the 
powers  which  He  has  given  me,  for  the  benefit  not  of 
Israel,  the  children  of  God,  but  of  those  whom  Israel  has 
always  regarded  as  no  more  than  mere  outcasts  ?  "  The 
woman's  humble  acceptance  of  the  situation,  her  plea  to 
be  accepted  as  one  who  can  hope  for  the  leavings,  as  it  were, 
of  God's  promises  to  Israel  makes  it  easy  for  Him  to  decide 
the  question  in  her  favour.  And  thereby,  perhaps,  the 
mind  of  Jesus  was  led  one  step  onwards  in  the  road  to  that 
recognition  of  God's  equal  love  of  all  men  to  which  it  is 
clear  that  He  ultimately  attained.  Progress  in  moral 
insight  there  must  certainly  have  been  in  Christ's  case,  as 
in  that  of  all  other  human  beings,  if  we  accept  the  Evangel- 
ist's statement  that  "  Jesus  advanced  in  wisdom  and 
suture."* 

So  far  I  have  assumed  the  trustworthiness  oi  the 
narrative.  At  the  same  time  I  may  remark  that  it  is  open 
to  some  suspicion,  not  because  it  is  connected  with  a 
narrative  of  miraculous  cure,  but  because  it  presupposes 
a  kind  of  miracle  much  more  difficult  to  imderstand  than 
most  of  our  Lord's  cures,  which  were  by  present,  personal 
*  Luke  ii.  5a. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     177 

influence.  Alleged  cures  from  a  distance  are  open  to 
peculiar  suspicion.  Still,  we  are  hardly  entitled  to  treat 
the  saying  as  altogether  without  historical  foundation. 
Loisy  remarks :  "  En  soi,  Tincident  n'autorisait  pas  la 
predication  de  I'Evangile  aux  paiens.  II  est  vrai  seule- 
ment  que  la  presence  de  Jesus  en  terre  paienne,  dans  une 
maison  qui  est  sans  doute  habitee  par  des  paiens,  et  ou  il 
regoit  I'hospitalite,  temoigne,  comme  sa  reponse  touchant 
la  purete  des  mets,  qu'il  ne  partage  aucunement  les 
scrupules  pharisaiques  sur  les  relations  avec  les  etrangers  " 
(£van,  Syn.y  I,  p.  971). 

The  words  "  I  am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of 
the  house  of  Israel "  are  in  Matthew  only  (xv.  24)  and 
possibly  represent  the  ideas  of  the  Evangelist  as  to  the 
personal  mission  of  Christ  (see  Loisy,  I.e.,  p.  973) :  he  was 
not  of  course  opposed  to  the  Gentile  mission  in  his  own 
days.  It  is  natural  enough  that  St.  Luke  should  have 
omitted  the  whole  incident. 

(6)  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs,  "  Give  not 
that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs,  neither  cast  your  pearls 
before  the  swine,  lest  haply  they  trample  them  under 
their  feet,  and  turn  and  rend  you.'' 

The  passage  occurs  in  Matthew  only.^  He  places  it  just 
after  the  command  not  to  say  '*  let  me  pull  out  the  mote 
out  of  thine  eye,  and  lo  !  a  beam  is  in  thine  own  eye."  If 
Matthew  has  preserved  the  context,  the  words  might  well 
mean  *'  Do  not  be  too  eager  to  offer  good  advice  or  rebuke, 
even  when  it  is  called  for,  unless  you  are  sure  that  it  will  be 
well  received.  Do  not  be  censorious  :  be  tactful  in  deahng 
with  others."  But  the  passage  has  rather  the  appearance 
of  an  isolated  saying.  To  see  in  these  words  a  prohibition 
to  preach  the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  to  Gentiles  would  be 
to  attribute  to  our  Lord  an  attitude  unsupported  by  any- 
^  Matt.  vii.  6. 
N 


178  Cojiscience  and  Christ 

thing  else  which  He  ever  said  or  did.  It  is  certain  that  not 
even  the  most  Jewish  of  the  Evangelists  would  have 
inserted  it  in  his  Gospel  if  he  had  understood  it  in  this 
sense.  It  is  not  easy  to  find  a  meaning  for  the  saying  which 
is  in  harmony  with  the  general  teaching  of  our  Lord  on  the 
assumption  of  its  genuineness.  It  is  far  more  probably  an 
*'  ecclesiastical  addition."  In  the  Didache  it  is  interpreted 
to  mean  "  Do  not  admit  the  unbaptized  to  the  Eucharist."* 
And  something  not  quite  so  definite  but  in  the  same 
spirit  may  well  have  been  the  meaning  which  it  bore  for 
the  Jud^o-Christian  consciousness.  As  Loisy  suggests,  it 
may  have  grown  out  of  the  saying  to  the  Syro-Phcenician 
woman. 

(7)  Depreciaiion  of  family  ties,  I  do  not  feel  that  the 
sayings  about  leaving  father  and  mother  to  preach  the 
coming  of  the  Kingdom  require  any  apology.  The  saying 
in  which  our  Lord  in  a  sense  repudiates  His  earthly  parent- 
age ("  Who  is  My  mother  and  My  brethren  ?  ")»  was 
provoked  by  an  attempt  on  their  part  to  keep  Him  back 
from  His  mission  on  the  ground  that  He  was  mad.  There 
are  occasions  when  family  ties  must  give  way  to  wider 
duties.  No  one  would  now  blame  such  language  in  a 
statesman  calling  upon  his  countrymen  to  take  up  arms  at 
a  supreme  crisis  in  the  history  of  his  country.  No  Christian 
ought  to  object  to  similar  language  in  an  advocate  of 
Missions  calling  upon  men  to  become  missionaries,  provided 
he  does  not  suggest  that  this  particular  call  is  one  which 
comes  to  all  men  in  all  circumstances.  Our  Lord  is  not 
responsible   for   the   monastic   abuse   of   this   principle. 

»  Didache,  ix.,  5. 

'  Bdark  iii.  33csMatt.  xii.  48.  Matthew  Iroxn  mistaken  reverence 
omits  the  words  about  being  "  beside  Himself."  Luke  omits  even 
the  words  "  WTio  are  My  mother  and  My  brethren  ?  "  but  retains  the 
characteristic  saying  "  My  mother  and  My  brethren  are  these  which 
hear  the  word  of  God  and  do  it  "  (Luke  viii.  21). 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     179 

Equally  true  is  it  that  the  spiritual  union  between  the 
true  servants  of  God  is  closer  than  the  ties  of  blood.  If  so, 
"  Whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  God,  the  same  is  My  brother 
and  sister  and  mother"  requires  equally  little  apology. 

(8)  Let  the  dead  bury  their  own  dead.  Another  saying  of 
the  same  class  is  ''  Let  the  (spiritually)  dead  bury  their  own 
dead  ''  (Matt.  viii.  22  ;  Luke  ix.  60).  This  also  might  well 
be  justified  by  the  circumstances,  even  if  taken  Hterally  : 
but,  considering  the  short  interval  which  in  the  East 
commonly  elapses  between  death  and  burial,  it  is  extremely 
improbable  that  the  father  was  actually  lying  dead  at  the 
time.  "  Suffer  me  first  to  go  and  bury  my  father  "  no 
doubt  means  '*  let  me  wait  till  the  old  man  dies.''  I  have 
met  in  some  commentary  with  the  remark  of  an  Eastern 
traveller  who  was  always  sceptical  of  this  explanation  till 
similar  language  was  actually  used  to  him  in  Palestine  of 
a  still  living  parent ;  but  I  cannot  find  the  reference. 

(9)  The  denunciation  of  the  Pharisees,  Mr.  Montefiore, 
from  the  standpoint  of  liberal  Judaism,  condemns  severely 
the  attacks  by  Jesus  on  the  Pharisees  both  as  being  un- 
justified in  themselves  and  as  inconsistent  with  His  own 
teaching.  To  use  the  language  of  severe  denunciation  does 
not  appear  to  me  ethically  unjustified  or  inconsistent  with 
the  spirit  of  the  teaching  which,  in  general,  Mr.  Montefiore 
approves  :  and  what  Jesus  denounces  in  the  teaching  and 
conduct  of  the  Pharisees  certainly  deserved  such  condemna- 
tion. It  does  not  appear  to  me  at  all  self-evident  that 
Jesus,  *'  if  he  had  loved  his  enemies,  would  not  have  called 
them  vipers,  or  enthusiastically  predicted  their  arrival  in 
hell "  {Syn.  Gospels,  II,  p.  524).  The  adverb,  of  course,  is 
Mr.  Montefiore's.  That  there  was  another  side  to  the 
teaching  perhaps  of  those  very  Pharisees  whom  Jesus 
denounced,  and  certainly  of  other  Pharisees,  Mr.  Monte- 
fiore is  quite  entitled  to  point  out,  and  Christians  ought 


i8o  Conscience  and  Christ 

freely  to  admit  the  fact.  But  it  is  hardly  fair  to  speak  of 
such  denunciations  as  merely  calling  "  religious  enemies 
hard  names  "  (ib,,  II,  p.  526).  It  was  not  the  theological 
doctrine  of  the  Pharisees  that  Jesus  denounced,  but  (i)  the 
immorality  of  their  teaching  and  (2)  their  hypocrisy — the 
contrast  between  their  exacting  teaching  and  their  Uves 
of  what  seemed  to  Him  easy,  self-complacent  religious 
exclusiveness.  In  the  very  same  page  on  which  this 
criticism  occurs,  Mr.  Montefiore  has  some  reflections — ^too 
well  deserved — on  the  intolerance  shown  by  Christians 
towards  Jews  which,  though  expressed  in  a  more  modem 
dialect,  mean  much  the  same  thing  as  the  denunciations 
of  Jesus.  That  we  have  learned  better  to  understand  the 
psychological  causes  of  such  aberrations  as  those  of  the 
Pharisees  may  be  admitted  by  any  Christian  who  does  not 
assert  that  Jesus  was  omniscient.  If  some  of  the  Pharisees 
were  not  justly  chargeable  with  all  the  bad  motives  which 
Jesus  attributed  to  them,  or  if  there  was  more  good  in 
them  than  He  supposed,  that  is  a  question  of  fact.  It  may 
be  admitted  that  the  historian's  judgement  about  the 
matter  should  not  be  based  on  these  sayings  alone. 
But  the  important  thing  for  us  is  whether  He  was  right  in 
severely  condemning  certain  elements  in  their  teaching 
and  the  state  of  mind  from  which  He  supposed  it  to  spring. 
I  do  not  see  in  these  denunciations  any  defect  of  ethical 
principle.  The  denunciation  of  the  Friars  as  a  class  by 
men  like  Wyclifie  and  Luther  seems  to  me  a  fairly  parallel 
case,  and  was  equally  justified,  though,  of  course,  there 
were  good  Friars  even  in  the  worst  periods  of  medieval 
history.  That  there  has  been  a  further  and  fuller  develop- 
ment of  that  principle  of  Universal  Love  which  Jesus 
taught  should  be  fully  admitted.  The  principle  of  religious 
toleration  was  not  actually  taught  by  Jesus,  though  He 
taught  nothing  contrary  to  it.    It  is  a  further  development 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     i8i 

of  the  principle  which  He  did  lay  down,  and  yet,  after  all, 
this  question  is  not  much  in  point  in  this  particular 
connexion,  for  there  was  no  question  of  persecuting  the 
Pharisees. 

I  am  not  competent  to  discuss  the  question  whether 
Mr.  Montefiore  does  not  as  much  overrate  the  Pharisees 
as  some  Christian  Theologians  (hberal  as  well  as  orthodox) 
have  unjustly  depreciated  them ;  I  will  only  say  that  he 
himself  in  his  indignant  protests  against  the  onesidedness 
of  Christian  Theologians  seems  occasionally  to  forget  the 
admissions  that  he  elsewhere  makes.  That  there  was  much 
in  the  teaching  and  conduct  of  the  Pharisees  which  was 
justly  rebuked  by  our  Lord,  could  be  proved  out  of  Mr. 
Montefiore's  own  writings.  Moreover,  he  is  (if  I  may 
venture  to  say  so)  too  apt  to  assume  that  all  that  is  best  in 
the  rabbinic  teaching  of  all  ages  must  be  supposed  to  have 
been  equally  characteristic  of  these  particular  Rabbis  and 
Pharisees  with  whom  our  Lord  had  to  deal.  On  the  face  of 
it,  it  is  probable  that  the  Pharisees  in  the  day  of  their 
political  ascendancy  would  show  the  characteristic  vices 
of  a  dominant  clergy  more  frequently  than  in  the  days  of 
national  humihation  and  persecution.  It  would  be  grossly 
unjust  to  the  French  clergy  of  to-day  to  say  of  them  what 
might  justly  be  said  of  their  predecessors  in  the  time  of 
Louis  XIV.  Nor  can  I  discuss  the  question  of  reflex 
Christian  influence  on  the  later  rabbinic  teaching.  It  is 
improbable  that  the  teaching  of  Christianity  (however 
little  illustrated  by  average  Christian  practice)  should  have 
produced  no  influence  on  their  Jewish  critics.  It  would  be 
equally  absurd  to  assume  that  the  views  about  toleration 
or  the  relative  unimportance  of  ritual  now  adopted  by  the 
best  Roman  Cathohcs  owe  nothing  to  Protestantism. 

This  will  be  a  convenient  place  to  examine  another  of 
Mr.  Montefiore's  reflections.     *'  I  thank  thee,  ^^ofiokoyovfxat 


i82  Conscience  and  Christ 

[which  may  have  its  usual  meaning  of '  confess,  acknow- 
ledge '],  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou 
didst  hide  these  things  from  the  wise  and  understanding, 
and  didst  reveal  them  unto  babes"  (Matt.  xi.  25=  Luke 
X.  21). 

Mr.  Montefiore  asks :  "  Is  he  not  only  glad  that  God  has 
revealed  the  truth  about  himself  to  the  simple,  but  that 
he  has  not  revealed  it  to  the  wise  and  the  clever  ?  Woe  to 
the  unbeUeving  Scribes,  and  yet  thank  God  for  their 
unbeUef  I  It  is  not  pleasing  to  have  to  beUeve  that  Jesus 
said  this."^  For  once  Mr.  Montefiore,  in  his  resentment  at 
Christ's  language  towards  the  Scribes,  seems  to  me  a  httle 
too  prosaic  and  Uteral.  If  Jesus  had  been  educated  as 
a  Jewish  scribe  or  a  western  philosopher,  and  had  carefully 
weighed  His  words  before  giving  utterance  to  this  sudden 
access  of  emotion,  He  would  perhaps  have  said  "  I  thank 
thee  that  thou  hast  revealed  to  the  simple  what  those  who 
pride  themselves  on  their  knowledge  and  their  insight 
have  failed,  with  all  their  education  and  their  wisdom,  to 
understand."  If  He  did  think  of  this  "  withholding  "  as 
a  sort  of  penalty  for  the  pride  of  learning,  would  such  a  point 
of  view  be  wholly  unjustified  ?  There  is  such  a  thing  as 
the  "  pride  of  knowledge,"  though  it  seldom  equals  the 
pride  of  half-educated  ignorance.  I  don't  think  Mr. 
Montefiore  would  have  quarrelled  much  with  this  saying 
if  he  had  found  it  in  the  Old  Testament  or  the  Talmud. 
That  not  all  the  Rabbis  of  our  Lord's  time  or  any  other 
deserved  such  a  censure,  I  have  fully  acknowledged. 

Our  Lord's  denunciation  of  the  cities  which  had  rejected 
Him  (Matt.  xi.  21 ;  Luke  x.  13)  may  be  dealt  with  in 
much  the  same  way.  The  denunciation,  according  to 
St.  Matthew,  was  called  forth  *'  because  they  repented 
not " :  and  this  is  impUed  in  the  words.  There  is  nothing 
^  Syn.  Goip$U,  11,  604. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     183 

personal  about  the  resentment.  The  strongest  saying, 
*'  Thou  shalt  be  brought  down  to  hell/'  clearly  cannot  be 
taken  hterally  to  mean  that  every  man,  woman  and  child 
in  Capernaum  would  go  to  hell.  In  so  far  as  they  are 
applied  to  the  whole  city  collectively,  the  words  are  clearly 
metaphorical — as  much  so  as  the  previous  words  *' which 
art  exalted  to  heaven  "  or  (R.V.)  *'  shalt  thou  be  exalted 
into  heaven  ?  " 

(10)  Undue  S  elf -exaltation  ?  The  much-disputed  doc- 
trinal passage  *'  no  man  knoweth  the  Son  but  the 
Father,"  etc.^  is  followed  by  the  words :  *'  Come  unto 
Me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I 
will  give  you  rest.  Take  My  yoke  upon  you  and  learn 
of  Me ;  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart "  (Matt.  xi. 
28-29).  These  last  words  have  been  thought  to  imply 
undue  self -approbation.  Martineau,  for  instance,  rejected 
them  as  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  Jesus. 
Taken  in  their  context — in  connexion  with  the  contrast 
(which  immediately  follows)  between  the  light  yoke  of 
His  teaching  and  the  heavy  burden  laid  on  man  by  the 
Pharisees,  I  do  not  see  that  Jesus — quite  independently  of 
any  claim  to  Divinity  or  even  to  Messiahship — should  not 
have  endeavoured  to  attract  men  by  saying  in  Wellhausen's 
words  "that  He  is  not  haughty,  and  does  not,  like  the 
Scribes,  despise  the  people,  which  knows  nothing  of  the 
Law.''  But  the  passage  is  in  Matthew  only,  and  is  of  the 
kind  which  might  well  be  an  ecclesiastical  addition. 
Beautiful  as  the  words  are,  spiritually  true  as  they  have 

1  It  would  be  out  of  place  to  discuss  the  genuineness  of  this 
passage  here.  The  differences  exhibited  by  Matthew  and  Luke  and 
by  different  MSS.  and  versions  are  considerable.  Hamack  [Sayings 
of  Jesus,  p.  295)  accepts  them  in  their  simplest  and  least  elaborated 
form.  It  is  probable  that  they  represent  some  genuine  saying,  but 
it  is  difficult  to  be  confident  that  even  Hamack's  reading  is  abso- 
lutely primitive. 


184  Conscience  and  Christ 

abundantly  been  shown  to  be,  they  are  not  unlikely  in 
their  present  form  to  represent  the  experience  of  the 
early  Church,  though  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  some 
genuine  saying  of  Jesus  about  the  hghtness  of  His  yoke  may 
underhe  them.  The  words  are  largely  inspired  by  a  passage 
from  Jeremiah  and  the  praise  of  Wisdom  in  Ecclesiasticus.* 
Loisy  doubts  their  historicity  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  and 
remarks  that  for  the  EvangeUst  they  mean,  "  le  joug  de 
J6sus  est  la  loi  chretienne,  si  douce  et  l^g^re  relativement  k 
la  Loi  mosaique  interpret ^  par  les  pharisiens  "  (Avan,  Syn., 

I,  913-14). 

(11)  Alleged  admission  of  moral  imperfection.  **  Why 
callest  thou  Me  good  ?  none  is  good  save  one  "  (Mark  x. 
18).  These  words  are  appealed  to  as  a  proof  of  our  Lord's 
consciousness  of  moi^  shortcoming.  That  they  represent 
the  true  version  of  the  saying  (which  the  true  text  of  Matt, 
xix.  17  waters  down — "  Why  askest  thou  Me  concerning 
the  good  ?  ")  no  one  who  takes  criticism  seriously  can 
doubt ;  nor  can  I  regard  them  as  merely  spoken  ad  hominem, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  questioner,  ignorant  of  the 
divine  nature  of  Him  who  spake.  They  constitute,  it  seems 
to  me,  a  real  disclaimer  of  such  absolute  goodness  as  He 
ascribed  to  the  Father.  Yet  I  do  not  think  that  they 
amount  to  the  admission  of  actual  sin.  The  only  evidence 
for  the  belief  in  the  absolute  sinlessness  of  Jesus  that  can 
be  produced  is  negative  evidence — the  marked  absence  of 
that  sense  of  sin  which  is  so  prominent  a  feature  of  the 
religious  consciousness  in  the  men  who  have  otherwise 
most  closely  approximated  to  the  goodness  of  Christ. 
(I  assume  that  our  view  of  the  fourth  Gospel  will  not 
permit  of  our  appeahng  to  John  viii.  46.)  He  appears  not 
to  have  felt  oppressed  by  any  consciousness  of  sin  or 
sinfulness  which  would  constitute  an  obstacle  to  complete 
*  Jcr.  vi.  16  ;  Ecdus.  U.  23  sq. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ      185 

communion  with  God.  Still,  it  is  so  difficult  to  form  a  clear 
conception  of  what  we  mean  by  absolute  sinlessness,  and 
so  impossible,  considering  the  extreme  imperfection  of  our 
record,  to  prove  such  sinlessness,  that  it  seems  to  me  best 
to  avoid  attempts  at  definition.  The  picture  handed  down 
by  the  Gospels  presents  to  us  the  character  of  one  in  whom 
we  can  see  no  consciousness  or  evidence  of  sinfulness. 
That  is  as  far  as  we  need  go.  Throughout  this  book  I  have 
assumed  that  it  is  because  it  is  confirmed  by  the  moral 
consciousness  of  the  modern  world  that  we  accept  the 
moral  teaching  and  character  of  Jesus  as  the  highest 
expression  of  absolute  and  permanent  moral  truth  that  we 
possess.  It  is  chiefly  the  essential  principles  of  Christian 
MoraHty  that  are  of  importance  to  us,  and  I  have  admitted 
the  need  of  development  in  the  light  of  later  knowledge, 
thought,  and  experience.  Still,  I  do  not  allow  that  any 
particular  precept  is  inconsistent  with  these  general 
principles,  viewed  in  the  light  of  existing  social  conditions 
and  of  what  was  then  known  of  social  laws,  or  that  on  any 
occasion  whatever  our  Lord  (so  far  as  we  know)  acted  in 
a  way,  or  exhibited  a  character  and  temper,  which  can  be 
pronounced  inconsistent  with  them. 

I  have  said  nothing  in  this  connexion  about  the  saying 
in  the  fourth  Gospel :  "  Which  of  you  convicteth  Me  of 
sin  ?  "  (John  viii.  46),  or  other  passages  which  involve 
similar  self-assertion.  The  self-assertion  of  the  Johannine 
Christ  does  strike  us  just  occasionally  as  a  httle  harsh,  and 
inconsistent  with  the  moral  ideal  which  we  should  recognize 
as  becoming  in  a  thoroughly  human  consciousness,  and 
with  the  character  actually  exhibited  by  the  Synoptic 
narratives.  It  is  not  that  the  things  which  the  Johannine 
Christ  says  about  Himself  may  not  be  regarded  as  having 
truth  in  them  ;  but  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  Jesus 
could  have  thought  and  said  such  things  about  Himself, 


1 86  Conscience  and  Christ 

and  retained  the  limitations  without  which  a  human 
consciousness  ceases  to  be  human.  To  my  mind  it  is  one 
of  the  positive  rehgious  gains  of  Criticism  that  we  can  read 
the  statements  of  the  Johannine  Christ  as  expressing  a 
disciple's  sense  of  the  value  of  Christ  and  His  revelation 
of  the  Father,  and  not  as  assertions  actually  made  about 
biiiiself  by  an  historical  person  engaged  in  controversy  with 
Us  opponents.  So  considered,  many  of  these  statements 
may  be  regarded  as  eternal  truths  of  the  highest  rehgious 
value.  There  is  real  truth  in  the  statement  that  Christ 
was  the  light  of  the  world,  and  that  no  man  can  come  to 
the  Father — in  the  fullest  and  completest  degree — except 
through  the  avenue  of  approach  instituted  by  this  historical 
revelation.  But  it  is  difficult  to  think  of  a  perfectly  good 
human  being  actually  making  such  a  declaration  about 
Himself ;  and  in  the  light  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  it  is 
extremely  improbable  that  He  did  so.  There  are  no  doubt 
many  pieces  of  strong,  though  legitimate,  self-assertion  in 
the  Synoptists,  but  they  are  of  a  different  kind — of  a 
kind  intelligible  enough  in  the  hght  of  Jesus'  behef  in  His 
own  Messianic  calling.  There  are,  too,  in  the  Synoptists 
severe  things  said  of  the  Pharisaic  opponents,  but  they  are 
different  in  character  from  the  tremendous  denunciations 
of  the  Johannine  Christ.  It  is  a  reUef  to  be  able  to  regard 
these  last,  not  for  purely  subjective  reasons,  but  on  the 
stnmgest  critical  grounds,  as  the  work  of  a  disciple  who 
had  in  general  marvellously  entered  into  the  spirit  of  his 
Master's  teaching,  but  who  was  consciously  developing 
rather  than  reporting  that  teaching,  and  who  looked  at  it 
in  the  Ught  of  a  theological  theory,  which  was  itself  part  of 
the  development.  I  prefer  to  think  of  sayings  like  "All 
who  came  before  me  were  thieves  and  robbers " »  as  a 
disciple's  impassioned  tribute  to  his  Master  rather  than 
as  the  Master's  words  about  Himself. 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     187 

(12)  The  Parable  of  the  Marriage  Feast :  Humility  for 
the  sake  of  Reward  (Luke  xiv.  7-1 1).  "  When  thou  art 
bidden,  go  and  sit  down  in  the  lowest  place,  that  when  he 
that  hath  bidden  thee  cometh,  he  may  say  unto  thee,  Friend, 
go  up  higher :  then  shalt  thou  have  glory  in  the  presence  of 
all  that  sit  at  meat  with  thee."  This  has  been  objected  to  on 
the  ground  that  it  makes  the  desire  for  honour  the  motive 
for  humility,  and  Jo.  Weiss  has  suggested  that  it  is  a 
certain  section  of  the  Christian  community  that  is  here 
speaking  rather  than  Jesus.  I  imagine  that  to  win  the 
favour  of  God  would  have  seemed  to  Jesus  too  pure  a 
motive  to  be  identified  with  ordinary  ambition  or  love  of 
honour.  And  no  one  could  well  demur  to  His  thinking  so,  if 
only  the  conception  of  God  is  kept  high  and  pure  enough. 
There  cannot  be  too  much  desire  to  be  approved  by  One 
whose  judgements  are  absolutely  just.  It  is  the  form 
which  the  desire  to  obey  the  Categorical  Imperative 
necessarily  assumes  to  the  Theist,  though,  no  doubt,  the 
desire  to  win  favour  with  God  may  easily  degenerate  into 
an  ambition  which  is  none  the  less  selfish  because  the 
reward  is  posthumous.  Others  have  taken  it  merely  as  a 
piece  of  practical  advice.  It  is  not  bad  or  degrading  advice 
to  say,  *'  It  is  better  to  leave  it  to  others  to  give  you  a  high 
place  than  to  take  it  yourself."  But  this  does  not  seem  to 
me  much  in  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  though  there  is  no  reason 
why  the  greatest  of  ethical  teachers  should  not  sometimes 
have  given  homely,  practical  advice  in  matters  of  the 
minor  morals.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  Evangelist  or 
tradition  may  have  given  some  genuine  saying  of  Jesus 
a  turn  which  made  it  a  warning  against  undue  ambition 
for  ecclesiastical  office. 

(13)  The  discouragement  of  Prudence,  It  has  often  been 
suggested  that  the  teaching  of  Christ  omits  that  whole  side 
of  Morality  which  may  be  summed  up  in  the  word  Prudence. 


i88  Conscience  and  Christ 

The  command  not  to  be  anxious  for  the  morrow  (Matt.  vi. 
34)  may  be  taken  as  a  sufficient  illustration  of  the  teaching 
which  is  objected  to.  Such  an  injunction,  it  may  be  said, 
would,  if  generally  acted  upon,  be  in  the  highest  degree 
injurious  to  the  interests  of  Society.  It  would  tend  to 
destroy  the  commercial  prosperity  of  a  modem  industrial 
conununity,  and  would  produce  a  population  of  Neapolitan 
beggars.  What  are  we  to  say  to  this  suggestion  ?  In  the 
first  place,  I  would  submit  that  the  objection  probably 
owes  a  good  deal  of  its  plausibiUty  to  the  mistranslation 
"  Take  no  thought  "  instead  of  **  Be  not  anxious."  In  the 
second  place,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  neglect  of 
material  interests  wliich  was  prescribed  by  Christ  was  only 
comparative.  It  was  in  comparison  with  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  that  the  question  of  meat  and  drink  was  un- 
important. And,  thirdly,  we  must  remember  that  in  a 
oommunity  which  did  systematically  put  the  Kingdom  of 
God  first,  no  socially  injurious  consequences  could  result 
from  the  preference.  In  a  conunimity  in  which  everyone 
did  systematically  care  for  the  things  of  others  and  not  for 
his  own  things,  there  could  be  no  neglect  of  the  general 
welfare  in  material  any  more  than  in  higher  ways.  If  all  its 
members  did  systematically  seek  first  the  Kingdom  of  God 
and  His  righteousness,  the  other  things  certainly  would  be 
added  to  such  a  community.  Unselfishness  would  be  as 
powerful  a  stimulus  to  industry  and  invention  as  selfishness. 
That  is  a  proposition  which  can  be  estabUshed  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  most  severe  economic  Science.  When 
anything  like  a  socialistic  or  communistic  community  has 
been  realized,  it  has  often  been  attended  by  the  highest 
economic  prosperity.  Whatever  difficulties  may  have 
arisen,  whatever  objections  there  may  be  to  such  com- 
munities from  other  points  of  view,  want  of  sufficient  food 
and  raiment  has  rarely  been  among  them.    The  practical 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     189 

difficulty  lies  in  extending  such  systems  from  a  com- 
munity of  carefully  selected  enthusiasts  to  communities  in 
which  men  of  all  characters  have  to  be  included.  When 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  comes  to  be  taken  as  the  working 
rule  of  Hfe  for  communities  of  average  men,  it  undoubtedly 
needs  to  be  interpreted  by  much  complementary  teach- 
ing. It  can  be  easily  shown  that  to  earn  one's  own  Hving 
and  not  become  burdensome  to  others  is  a  duty  which 
results  directly  from  the  fundamental  Christian  principle  of 
love  to  one's  neighbour  ;  but  undoubtedly  it  is  a  deduction 
or  corollary  which  required  to  be  pointed  out  and  insisted 
upon.  St.  Paul  discovered  that  necessity,  and  supplied  the 
complementary  teaching  required. 

Mr.  Montefiore  has  some  fine  remarks  on  this  text : 
*'  'Not  to  be  anxious'  means  to  have  a  free  heart,  to  be 
courageous  and  active,  to  accept  our  life  every  day  fresh 
from  God's  hand  and  to  trust  in  Him.  But  such  com- 
posure of  mind  is  not  only  not  a  hindrance,  but  is  even  an 
inexhaustible  source  of  strength  for  a  successful  struggle 
for  existence.  And  how  shall  we  attain  such  freedom  from 
anxiety  ?  Jesus  says  to  us,  '  Fill  your  soul  with  a  great 
purpose,  endeavour  after  the  kingdom  of  God,  battle  for 
the  victory  of  good  in  the  world,  strive  after  personal 
perfection,  and  then  what  has  hitherto  oppressed  you  will 
appear  to  you  petty  and  insignificant '  "  (Syn.  Gospels, 

n.  545). 

(14)  The  alleged  impossibility  of  Universal  Love,  It  is 
surprising  to  find  intelligent  persons  finding  a  difficulty 
in  Christ's  requirement  of  Universal  Love  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  impossible  to  love  all  men  equally.  It  is  not 
Christ  alone  but  almost  all  the  higher  Moralists  who  have 
used  the  term  "  love  "  to  indicate  two  things  :  (i)  a  state 
of  the  desires,  emotions,  and  will  directed  towards  the  good 
of  one's  fellows,  and  (2)  the  spontaneous  feeling  of  special 


1 90  Conscience  and  Christ 

attachment  to  particular  persons — affection  such  as  our 
Lord  is  recorded  to  have  expressed  for  the  rich  young  man, 
for  Lazarus  and  his  sisters,  for  the  "  disdple  whom  Jesus 
loved."  ^  This  fact — I  suspect  a  universal  fact — of  language 
has  obviously  a  foundation  in  the  facts  of  moral  Psychology. 
The  ideal  relation  between  human  beings  is  one  in  which 
the  will  of  each  is  as  steadily  directed  towards  the  good  of 
every  other  human  being  as  it  is  towards  his  own  good  or 
that  of  persons  towards  whom  he  feels  the  strongest 
emotional  attraction  ;  and  in  proportion  as  this  attitude  is 
lealked,  an  emotion  is  felt  which  is  to  some  extent  the  same, 
though  to  some  extent  different,  from  the  feeling  entertained 
towards  friends.  The  feding  entertained  towards  the  per- 
sonal friend  is  the  feding  of  good- will  based  upon  i)ersonal 
liking  or  attraction.  Language  can  only  express  the  ideal 
leeUng  towards  one's  fellows  as  sudi  by  generaUzing  the 
tma»  naturally  used  to  indicate  personal  a£Eection  (ayair^, 
^ta,  amor,  dilectio,  caritas).  A  reasonable  Ethic  will 
approve  of  this  generalization  >^ithout  denying  that  the 
feeling  becomes  in  same  ways  different  by  being  extended 
towards  a  large  drde  of  persons,  known  and  unkno\^7i. 
When  Aristotle  said  that  one  ought  to  be  a  greater  friend 
to  truth  than  to  beloved  individuals,  nobody  takes  him  to 
mean  that  one  must  fed  towards  truth  exactly  as  one  does 
towards  one's  nearest  friends  or  rdations.  There  is  a  kind 
of  thoughtlessness  which  is  possible  in  theological  (or  anti- 
theological)  discussion  which  cultivated  men  are  nev^ 
guilty  of  in  any  other  connexion. 

Sometimes  the  same  kind  of  objection  is  made  to  the 
place  which  the  love  of  God  occupies  in  the  Christian  ideal. 
The  objector  asks,  for  instance  :   *'  Did  any  man  ever  love 

'  Mark  x.  2x;  John  xi.  5,  xx.  2.  Cf.  Aristotle's  use  of  ^la 
for  a  universal  human  duty  and  for  a  special  social  relation.  Eth. 
Nic.,  iv.,  X126  b. ;  viii.,  1155  a.,  1x61  b.,  etc« 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     191 

God  as  he  has  loved  some  human  beings  ?  Did  he  ever 
derive  from  the  love  of  God  a  greater  inspiration  for  all 
good  things  and  thoughts  than  from  the  love  of  some  one 
or  other  child  of  earth  ?  "  (Garrod,  The  Religion  of  All  Good 
Men,  Ed.  I,  p.  169).  On  this  objection  I  would  remark 
(i)  that  the  author  seems  naively  to  suppose  that  an  ideal 
is  shown  to  be  false  because  it  is  not  fully  realized  by  most 
of  us  :  on  this  side  the  objection  would  best  be  met  by  some 
well-known  quotations  from  Plato.  (2)  He  has  largely 
answered  himself  when  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  Did  he  never 
feel  that  in  the  love  of  some  single  human  being  he  was 
loving  God  ?  ''  If  the  love  of  God  not  only  does  not 
exclude,  but  expresses  itself  in  the  love  of  particular 
persons,  why  does  he  object  to  the  Christian  language  ? 
If  the  writer  does  not  mean  that  the  moral  ideal  is  adequately 
satisfied  by  the  love  of  a  single  human  being  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  all  others,  it  is  clear  that  the  love  of  all  Good 
will  express  itself  in  the  love,  not  merely  of  a  single  human 
being,  but  of  all  human  beings. 

The  love  which  ought  to  be  felt  towards  all  men  as  such 
is  the  desire  of  the  true  good  for  particular  human  beings, 
and  such  love  is  the  same  in  principle  as  the  love  of  God,  in 
whom  whatever  is  good  in  human  beings  is  realized  in 
a  transcendent  degree,  and  whose  Will  is  (as  Christians 
believe)  directed  towards  the  good  of  those  beings.  The 
emotion  which  naturally  accompanies  such  a  direction  of 
the  will  normally  shows  itself  in  the  love  of  particular 
individuals,  or  quite  as  often  in  devotion  to  particular 
societies  of  individuals.  Love  of  country,  of  Church,  of  the 
ideal  represented  by  Christ  has  often,  in  point  of  fact,  been 
quite  as  intense  as  that  felt  for  a  wife  or  a  friend.  The 
highest  degree  of  devotion  to  the  general  good  does  not 
exclude  the  existence  of  feelings  towards  particular  persons 
which  it  would  be  a  psychological  impossibility  to  feel 


1 92  Conscience  and  Christ 

towards  all.  Nor  does  it  follow  that  on  all  occasions  the 
best  man  will  behave  towards  all  as  he  does  towards  his 
best  friend.  The  love  of  Humanity  shows  itself  largel>'. 
though  not  entirely,  in  performing  services  for  particular 
individuals.  Tlie  extent  to  which,  and  the  ways  in  which 
the  good  man  will  promote  the  good  of  any  particular 
individual  will  depend  upon  the  nature  of  his  relation 
towards  them.  There  are  obvious  reasons  why  a  man 
should  in  practice  promote  the  good  of  his  own  family 
more  actively  and  persistently  in  certain  ways  than  the 
good  of  strangers.  Somewhat  similar  considerations  will 
prescribe  that  in  certain  other  ways  we  should  promote  the 
good  of  those  to  whom  we  are  attracted  by  natural  and 
spontaneous  affection  rather  than  that  of  strangers.  The 
existence  of  such  natiu^  affection  is  one  of  the  things — but 
only  one — ^which  detennines  for  which  of  all  possible 
human  beings  we  should  specially  p)erform  good  offices. 
What  I  imagine  the  Christian  and  rational  precept 
of  love  towards  mankind  as  such  to  prescribe  is  that  the 
ultimate  laws  of  human  conduct  should  be  determined  by 
the  principle  that  every  man  should  be  treated  as  an 
end-in-himself  according  to  his  intrinsic  value.  This 
ultimate  law  will  prescribe  that  our  conduct  even  towards 
those  for  whom  we  have  most  natural  affection  should  be 
duly  controlled  by,  and  subordinated  to,  the  requirements 
of  general  social  well-being.  The  selection  of  the  persons 
towards  whom  should  be  performed  the  kind  of  services 
which  cannot  be  performed  towards  all  should  be  deter- 
mined likewise  by  the  supreme  rule  of  promoting  universal 
well-being.  This  supreme  rule  v^ill  prescribe,  for  instance, 
that  a  man  is  free  to  a  large  extent  to  choose  his  com- 
panions according  to  his  own  tastes,  and  that  he  may 
spend  much  of  his  leisure  in  their  company.  It  would, 
however,  clearly  not  be  a  rule  fit  for  law  universal  that  he 


Objections  to  the  Moral  Teaching  of  Christ     193 

should  leave  to  his  personal  friend  the  money  which  by 
the  social  custom  of  his  community  and  the  imphed  under- 
standing at  his  marriage  should  go  to  his  wife  and  her 
children,  even  if  he  chanced  to  feel  more  affection  for  the 
friend  than  for  the  wife.  And  the  same  principle  will  re- 
quire that  neither  personal  friend  nor  wife  and  children 
should  interfere  with  the  discharge  of  his  professional 
duties  or  his  willingness  to  fight  for  his  country  in  the  hour 
of  need.  But  I  feel  I  am  here  straying  into  broad  questions 
of  Moral  Philosophy  which  it  would  take  too  long  to 
discuss  here. 

It  may  be  suggested  that,  while  it  is  possible  for  a  man 
to  act  upon  such  principles,  it  is  not  possible  for  him  to 
control  his  feelings  and  emotions  and  affections  to  the  same 
extent.  I  should  reply  briefly  (i)  that  the  man  whose  will 
is  steadily  directed  towards  such  a  rule  of  conduct  does 
fulfil  the  command  of  universal  love  :  the  love  towards  all 
men  which  the  Christian  rule  and  rational  Morality  demand 
is  primarily  a  direction  of  the  will.  The  fact  that  a  man 
is  willing  to  prefer  the  interests  of  Humanity  to  those  of 
his  wife  and  family  (where  such  a  preference  is  really 
demanded),  actually  proves  that  he  does  desire  their  good 
more  than  that  of  wife  and  children.  Will  is  a  name  for  the 
dominant  desire  which  has  passed  into  action,  (ii)  In  so 
far  as  the  emotional  accompaniments  of  such  a  desire  can 
be  distinguished  from  the  desire  itself,  they  will  tend  to 
grow  into  conformity  with  the  rule  upon  which  the  man 
habitually  wills  to  act.  (iii)  In  so  far  as  the  emotion  that 
we  feel  towards  particular  persons  is  of  a  kind  that  we 
cannot  feel  towards  strangers  or  towards  collective 
humanity,  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  the  strongest 
devotion  to  Humanity  and  the  tenderest  affections  towards 
individuals. 

After  all,  the  best  answer  to  Mr.  Garrod  is  to  point  to  the 
o 


194  Conscience  and  Christ 

actual  character  and  conduct  of  the  best  Christians  in  all 
ages.  The  Christians  who  have  left  home  and  family  and 
friends  to  become  missionaries,  or  who  have  refused  to 
seek  safety  in  time  of  danger  for  fear  of  leaving  their 
wives  widows  and  their  children  fatherless,  or  who  have 
done  things  which  involved  the  risk  of  pecuniary  ruin  to 
their  families  rather  than  be  dishonest,  have  felt  the  ties 
of  kinship  and  personal  affection  as  keenly  as  other  men : 
yet  the  fact  that  they  acted  as  they  did  is  a  proof  that  they 
did  love  God  or  Christ  or  Humanity  more  than  all  these. 
The  candour  and  sincerity  of  Mr.  Garrod's  enquiry  deserve 
respect,  but  he  is  not  the  only  writer  who  has  criticized 
Christianity  without  shoeing  much  knowledge  of  what 
the  best  actual  Christians  have  shown  themselves  to  be 
like  either  in  history  or  in  his  own  day.  When  personal 
experience  fails,  a  little  study  of  Christian  biography  may 
be  recommended  as  an  essential  qualification  for  writing 
upon  the  comparative  merits  of  the  Christian,  the  Hellenic, 
and  the  "  Gothic  "  ideals  of  life. 


LECTURE   V 
THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  DEVELOPMENT 

IN  my  last  lecture  I  endeavoured  to  make  it  plain 
that  the  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus  could  be  regarded 
as  the  supreme  guide  for  conduct  in  modern  life  on 
two  conditions  only — firstly,  that  that  teaching  is 
understood  as  laying  down  general  principles  and 
not  detailed  regulations  of  eternal  obUgation :  secondly, 
that  the  necessity  for  development  is  admitted  in  the 
amplest  possible  manner.  The  first  condition  is  one 
which  may  be  said  to  have  been  fully  recognized  by 
Jesus  Himself,  since  He  never  attempts  to  do  more  than 
lay  down  principles :  any  applications  which  He  gives 
to  them  are  avowedly  mere  illustrations  or  applica- 
tions of  those  principles  to  the  conduct  of  particular 
individuals  under  particular  circumstances,  which  can 
only  be  applied  to  other  individuals  and  other  cir- 
cumstances by  disengaging  the  general  principle  from 
the  particular  application.  And  this  implicitly  carries 
with  it  the  other  principle,  the  principle  of  Develop 
ment ;  for,  if  one  can  discover  no  detailed  rules  in  the 
teaching  of  Christ,  it  is  obvious  that  we  must  make 
them  for'  ourselves.    How  far  we  can  discover  any  ex- 

195 


196  Conscience  and  Christ 

press  recognition  of  that  necessity  for  development  in 
the  teaching  of  the  Master  Himself  will  depend  largely 
upon  the  view  that  we  take  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  contained  in  that  Gospel 
obviously  impUes  this  principle.  It  was  to  be  the 
object  of  the  Spirit's  indwelling  to  take  of  Christ's  and 
show  it  unto  His  disciples.  The  Spirit  was  to  say  to 
them  many  things  which  at  present  they  could  not 
bear,  and  therefore  His  going  away  from  them  was  the 
very  condition  of  their  moral  and  spiritual  advance- 
ment. I  do  not  myself  think  that  this  teaching  about 
the  Paraclete  in  the  Church  can  have  had  more  than 
a  rudimentary  germ  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself. 
There  was  a  germ  of  it  in  that  recognition  of  the 
existence  of  Conscience  on  which  I  have  already 
dwelt,  and  in  the  many  sayings  which  speak  of  a  Holy 
Spirit  working  in  the  hearts  of  men.  The  fourth 
Evangelist's  doctrine  of  the  Paraclete,  and  of  the 
Church  as  the  Society  in  which  the  Spirit  dwells  and 
works,  is  just  an  illustration  of  that  very  development 
of  which  I  am  speaking.  It  involves  the  principle  both 
in  the  region  of  Theology  and  in  that  of  Ethics.  In 
the  present  lecture  I  must  confine  myself  to  the  ethical 
side  of  this  development. 

It  is  well  that  we  should  set  before  our  minds  quite 
clearly  and  definitely  what  is  meant  by  this  principle 
of  ethical  Development.  We  have  already  dealt  with 
the  kind  of  ethical  evolution  which  went  on  in  the 
Jewish  mind  before  the  time  of  Christ,  and  which  cul- 


The  Principle  of  Development  197 

minates  in  His  teaching.  In  that  teaching,  as  I  have 
tried  to  show  you,  we  do  discover  a  supreme  and 
final  principle  which  we  do  not  expect  to  be  tran- 
scended— the  rule  of  universal  love,  which  (expressed 
in  cold  philosophical  terms)  implies  that  human  duty 
consists  in  the  promotion  of  the  true  good  for  all  man- 
kind, the  good  of  one  being  considered  as  of  equal 
intrinsic  value  with  the  like  good  of  every  other.  Why 
is  this  principle  insufficient  for  the  guidance  of  life 
without  any  further  expansion  ?  For  two  reasons  : 
in  the  first  place  we  want  to  know  the  means  by  which 
human  good  is  to  be  promoted :  and  in  the  second 
place  we  must  know  what  in  detail  constitutes  this 
'*  good  "  which  we  are  to  promote  for  all  mankind. 
It  is  obvious  from  the  nature  of  the  case  that  there  can 
be  no  finality  in  either  of  these  directions.  The  dis- 
covery of  any  fresh  means  of  promoting  human  good 
not  only  adds  new  rules  of  life  to  the  ethical  code ; 
it  actually  cancels  old  rules.  Not  only  has  the  course 
of  social  and  intellectual  development  opened  up  a 
thousand  duties  of  which  no  one  living  in  the  time 
of  Jesus  could  well  have  dreamed,  of  which  the 
wisest  of  men,  Jewish,  pagan  or  Christian,  never  had 
dreamed,  but  many  acts  which  to  the  world  of  that 
day  seemed  right  have  become  wrong  in  the  light  of 
fuller  knowledge  of  detailed  fact  and  of  natural  or 
social  law.  Indiscriminate  almsgiving  became  wrong 
when  it  was  discovered  that  it  does  more  harm  than 
good— generally  to  the  actual   recipient,    always  to 


198  Conscience  and  Christ 

others.  It  has  become  wrong  to  spend  time  in  organ- 
izing solemn  processions  as  a  means  of  averting 
plague  now  that  we  know  that  plague  is  produced  by 
neglect  of  sanitary  precautions,  and  that  energy 
devoted  to  sanitary  reform  is  a  more  effective  way  of 
averting  it  than  the  organization  of  processions.  It 
has  become  wrong  for  reUgious  men  to  turn  aside  from 
politics  now  that  we  realize  how  much  improved 
social  arrangements  may  do  not  merely  for  human 
happiness  but  for  the  improvement  of  human  character 
and  for  the  elevation  of  human  life  on  its  most  spiritual 
side.  This  principle,  when  once  pointed  out,  is  too 
obvious  to  need  further  illustration ;  and  yet  it 
involves  the  absolute  abandonment  of  the  attempt 
to  derive  detailed  guidance  in  matters  of  conduct 
from  any  final  and  closed  system  of  moral  rules, 
whether  it  be  the  teaching  of  Christ  or  of  the  New 
Testament  or  of  the  most  elaborate  authoritative 
Casuistry.  The  more  elaborate  and  detailed  the  rules 
become,  the  greater  ere  long  becomes  their  inapplica- 
bility to  a  world  in  which  circumstances  are  con- 
stantly changing  and  knowledge  advancing.  Simple 
as  the  principle  is,  I  do  not  think  it  has  ever  yet 
been  sufficiently  grasped  by  the  mass  of  rehgious 
people  or  by  their  religious  guides.  It  is  still  too  often 
assumed  that  we  cannot  make  the  promotion  of 
Socialism  a  Christian  duty  unless  we  can  show  that 
Christ  Himself  was  a  SociaUst,  or  that  we  can  refute 
Socialism  by  showing  that  He  was  not.    There  is  still 


The  Principle  of  Development  199 

too  much  disposition  among  Christian  people  to  settle 
ethical  controversies  by  the  appeal  to  isolated  texts 
or  to  ancient  ecclesiastical  rules.  ^ 

It  is  the  other  kind  of  development  which  creates 
the  most  difficulty — the  development  in  our  concep- 
tion of  what  this  ideal  consists  in,  this  *'  good  "  which 
we  recognize  it  as  a  duty  to  promote  for  all  mankind. 
It  is  here  that  it  may  most  plausibly  be  contended 
that  the  principle  of  development  has  actually  been 
carried  by  almost  all  modern  Christians  to  a  point 
which  really  makes  it  impossible  to  treat  the  moral 
teaching  of  Jesus  as  any  longer  expressing  an  ideal 
which  enlightened  modern  minds  can  recognize  as  their 
own.  It  has  become  fashionable  to  express  the  con- 
trast between  the  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus  and  the 
ideal  which  most  modern  men  profess  by  saying  that 
the  ethics  of  Jesus  were  '*  world-renouncing ''  and 
that  ours  are  ''world-affirming.''*  I  should  like  to 
face  that  question  as  honestly  as  I  can — to  ask  firstly 
how  far  this  contrast  holds  between  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  and  the  ethical  ideal  which  most  cultivated 
modern  Christians  actually  profess ;  and  secondly, 
whether,  in  so  far  as  this  is  the  case,  it  prevents  our 

^  I  am  afraid  that  some  of  the  publications  even  of  so  enlightened 
a  body  as  the  Christian  Social  Union  have  not  been  altogether  free 
from  the  tendency  to  erect  a  social  system  upon  the  basis  of  texts 
from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

*  See,  for  instance,  Professor  Troeltsch's  brilliant  work  Protestant- 
ism and  Progress  (trans,  by  W.  Montgomery).  The  weak  point  of 
that  otherwise  valuable  enquiry  seems  to  me  to  lie  in  the  acceptance 
of  this  distinction,  without  much  analysis,  as  adequate  and  absolute. 


200  Conscience  and  Christ 

aincerely  giving  to  that  teaching  the  supremacy  which 
Christians  have  always  claimed,  and  still  claim,  for  it. 
To  a  great  extent  I  have  already  dealt  with  these 
questions  in  asking  how  far  the  eschatological  ideas 
of  Jesus  really  prevent  our  accepting  His  fundamental 
ethical  principles.  In  fact,  I  do  not  think  I  need  do 
much  more  than  remind  you  of  the  conclusions  at 
which  we  have  already  arrived.  If  these  conclusions 
are  true,  we  shall  answ^er  our  present  problem  by 
saying  two  things  :  (i)  That  there  is  room  for  much 
development  in  our  conception  of  what  the  ideal  good 
consists  in  without  giving  up  the  fimdamental  prin- 
ciple that  the  supreme  precept  in  Morahty  is  that  which 
enjoins  the  promotion  of  this  good  for  all  mankind  : 
and  (2)  that  the  extent  to  which  it  can  justly  be  said 
that  the  ideal  of  Jesus  was  world-renouncing  has  been 
greatly  exaggerated.  Undoubtedly  the  ideal  of  Jesus 
was  world-renouncing,  if  that  means  the  renunciation 
of  selfishness,  of  selfish  ambitions,  of  sensuality,  of 
pride ;  if  it  means  that  in  the  ideal  hfe  the  highest 
place  was  to  be  given  to  a  goodness  of  which  love  is 
the  supreme  element,  and  in  which  the  spiritual  is 
regarded  as  of  much  more  importance  than  the  camad. 
Nobody  who  does  not  acknowledge  the  truth  of  His 
teaching  on  such  fundamental  points  as  this — nobody 
(to  put  it  more  definitely)  whose  ideal  does  not  include 
the  condemnation  of  adultery  and  fornication  and 
sensuality  in  thought,  of  drunkenness  and  every  exces- 
sive indulgence  of  appetite — is  likely  even  to  claim  that 


The  Principle  of  Deveto-pmeni  20I 

his  ethical  ideal  is  a  legitimate  development  of  Christ's. 
But  neither  His  ideal  nor  His  practice  were  world- 
renouncing  in  the  sense  of  despising  and  condemning 
all  ordinary  human  pleasure — still  less  in  the  extremer 
sense  of  positively  courting  pain.  He,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  neither  practised  nor  enjoined  fasting. 
He  spent  much  of  His  time  and  energy  in  curing 
diseases  of  mind  and  body.  He  made  little  of  bodily 
pleasures  and  satisfactions  in  comparison  with  higher 
things.  But  He  never  condemned  them,  or  urged  that 
they  should  be  given  up  except  as  a  means  to  some- 
thing higher — that  something  being,  for  His  im- 
mediate disciples,  the  preaching  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  and,  for  all,  the  effort  to  become  fit  for  entrance 
into  that  Kingdom.  And  that  really  implies  that  in 
principle  His  ideal  was  not  world-renouncing.  There 
is  absolutely  no  idea  or  suggestion  in  His  teaching  of 
self-renunciation  for  its  own  sake — of  the  ideal  which 
would  extinguish  all  pleasure,  all  desire,  all  in- 
dividuality. If  in  the  exercise  of  our  moral  conscious- 
ness we  judge  many  things  in  life  to  be  good  of  which 
He  knew  little  and  thought  little,  it  is  a  quite  legitimate 
extension  and  development  of  His  teaching  to  include 
these  things  in  our  conception  of  the  good  which  the 
rule  of  Universal  Love  bids  us  promote  for  others. 

Indeed,  it  may,  I  think,  be  shown  that  the  ascetic 
view  of  life  is  logically  inconsistent  with  the  teaching 
which  makes  the  heart  of  Morality  consist  in  love — 
love  as  Jesus  understood  it.    He  certainly  recognized 


202  Conscience  and  Christ 

it  as  a  duty  to  promote  bodily  health,  and  a  certain 
measure  of  enjoyment  for  others.  His  injunctions 
to  charity  are  constantly  directed  towards  the  satis- 
faction of  bodily  wants,  and  no  sober  criticism  can 
well  deny  that  He  claimed  to  heal  some  kinds  of 
bodily  disease  by  spiritual  influence.  If  these  things 
are  good  for  others,  they  must  be  good  for  myself  also 
— ^in  due  subordination  to  the  claims  of  others  :  up  to 
that  point  therefore  it  cannot  be  wrong  for  me  to  enjoy 
them  myself.  Nor  is  there  any  reason  why,  whether 
for  ourselves  or  for  others,  we  should  stop  at  precisely 
that  minimum  of  enjoyment  which  is  represented  by 
a  sufficiency  of  food  and  clothing.  We  cannot  set  up 
a  rule  of  unlimited  giving  or  self-sacrifice  for  the  sake 
of  others  without  raising  the  question :  "To  what 
shall  the  energies  of  a  community  be  devoted  when 
once  food  and  clothing  have  been  secured  to  every- 
one ?  "  If  it  is  suggested  that  the  rest  of  their  energies 
ought  to  be  devoted  to  the  promotion  of  righteousness, 
it  must  be  remembered  that  there  is  a  Umit  to  the 
extent  to  which  time  can  effectively  be  spent  in  the 
promotion  of  righteousness.  Too  much  zeal  for 
edification  ceases  to  edify.  Let  us  suppose  that  we 
have  secured  a  commimity  in  which  nobody  takes 
more  than  his  share  of  the  lower  goods,  and  in  which, 
so  far,  nobody  is  wanting  in  love.  Is  all  the  rest 
of  the  time  and  energy  of  the  community  to  be  spent 
in  religious  contemplation  or  spiritual  exercises  ?  If 
not,  to  what  is  their  time  to  be  devoted  if  not  either 


The  Principle  of  Development  203 

to  some  increase  of  lower  pleasures  or  enjoyments 
above  what  is  absolutely  necessary  for  life  and  health, 
or  to  such  higher  enjoyments  as  Science,  Art,  Litera- 
ture, and  the  Uke  ?  Are  we  not  then  to  include  these 
things  in  our  conception  of  the  ideal  Ufe  ? 

It  might,  indeed,  be  contended  that  from  the 
actual  nature  of  things  it  is  impossible  that  everyone 
should  enjoy  more  than  a  very  moderate  amount  of 
such  higher  goods  as  Art,  Knowledge,  Culture,  and 
that  no  one  ought  to  get  more  of  these  things  than  is 
possible  for  everyone.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is 
quite  impossible  that  all  should  enjoy  even  a  moderate 
amount  of  culture  unless  some  men  enjoy  a  much 
higher  amount.  The  scientific  discoveries  which  all 
may  know  of,  and  the  scientific  inventions  which  all 
may  use,  have  resulted  from  the  labours  of  men  who 
have  devoted  the  bulk  of  their  time  and  energy  to 
Science.  The  books  which  all  may  read  have  been 
written  by  men  who  have  devoted  their  lives  to  reading 
more,  and  thinking  more,  than  those  who  read  them. 
The  little  insight  into  the  nature  of  the  Universe  and 
the  little  enjoyment  of  beauty  which  are  possible  to 
those  who  spend  most  of  their  days  in  manual  labour, 
come  from  the  work  of  those  who  have  spent  most  of 
their  time  in  intellectual  or  artistic  pursuits.  In  this 
way  it  may  be  shown  that  there  is  an  inner  contra- 
diction in  the  position  of  those  who,  without  denjdng 
that  some  enjoyment  of  the  best  things  is  part  of  the 
ideal  life,  would  set  very  severe  limits  to  that  enjoy- 


204  Conscience  and  Christ 

ment,  and  prax:tically  look  askance  upon  any  serious 
devotion  to  artistic  or  scientific  or  literary  pursuits 
by  anyone  professing  to  accept  the  Christian  ideal  of 
mutual  service.  The  severer  the  Asceticism,  the  more 
logical  it  becomes.  Only  when  Asceticism  becomes 
severe,  it  becomes  hopelessly  irreconcilable  with  the 
teaching  and  practice  of  Him  whose  example  Chris- 
tians profess  to  respect.  If  the  Science  which  has 
resulted  in  so  much  saving  of  pain  to  humanity  is  a 
bad  thing,  why  was  it  right  for  Jesus  to  go  about 
curing  disease  ?  If  a  ball  is  in  itself  wrong  (I  am  putting 
aside  for  the  present  the  question  how  much  time  and 
money  ought  to  be  spent  upon  such  enjoyments), 
why  not  the  simple  village  wedding  feast  ?  If  absti- 
nence and  the  depression  which  it  causes  are  really 
better  than  the  health  and  cheerfuhieaB  which  springs 
from  moderate  eating  and  drinking,  why  did  not 
Jesus  teach  His  disciples  to  fast  as  the  disciples  of 
John  and  of  the  Pharisees  fasted  ? 

After  all.  there  is  no  arguing  about  these  ultimate 
judgements  of  value.  Physical  Science  it  is  difficult  to 
condemn  for  anyone  who  shares  the  Christian  ideal  of 
Brotherhood,  on  account  of  its  practical  applications  : 
but  if  anybody  likes  to  say  that  the  world  would  be 
a  better  world  if  there  were  in  it  no  drama,  no  novels, 
no  poetry  except  hymns,  no  music  except  hymn-tunes, 
no  Art  except  what  is  directly  conducive  to  edification, 
no  learning  beyond  the  biblical  exegesis  of  the  Sunday 
School,  no  Philosophy  which  seriously  faces  ultimate 


The  Principle  of  Development  205 

questions,  he  cannot  be  positively  refuted.  If  this 
be  the  result  of  appeal  to  the  moral  consciousness, 
there  is  no  more  to  be  said.  I  can  only  say  to  my  own 
mind  this  is  certainly  not  the  case ;  my  own  moral 
consciousness  unhesitatingly  affirms  that  these  things 
are  good  ;  and  so  does  that  of  most  modern  men.  The 
austere  religionists  who  even  now  are  inclined  to 
depreciate  all  employments  which  do  not  minister  to 
the  relief  of  strict  bodily  necessities  on  the  one  hand  or 
to  immediate  edification  on  the  other,  generally  admit 
so  much  of  the  modern  view  of  life  that  they  can  be 
convicted  of  intellectual  inconsistency,  or  at  least  of 
arbitrary  limitations,  if  they  refuse  to  go  further.  They 
look  with  suspicion  on  the  man  of  Science ;  yet  they 
will  travel  in  railway  trains,  and  use  telephones,  and 
regard  it  as  a  thoroughly  religious  task  to  secure  the 
best  medical  treatment  for  the  sick.  They  cannot 
quite  get  over  the  suspicion  that  there  is  something 
profane  and  presumably  godless  about  the  occupation 
of  a  Philosopher,  or  a  researcher,  or  an  Artist ;  yet 
they  will  hang  photographs  of  the  Artist's  picture  on 
their  walls,  and,  when  the  ideas  of  the  Philosopher  or 
the  discoveries  of  the  researcher  have  filtered  down 
into  school  text-books,  they  will  be  heartily  zealous 
that  children  should  read  them.  They  condemn  the 
stage,  but  they  will  read  Shakespeare  at  home — and  so 
forth.  The  most  hopelessly  inconsistent  of  all  are  the 
religious  people  who  do  not  condemn  a  very  consider- 
able indulgence  in  the  lower  good  things  of  life,  but 


2o6  Conscience  and  Christ 

reser\'e  all  their  asceticism  for  the  higher  intellectual 
pursuits.  Have  we  not  known  of  rich  bankers  or  wine- 
merchants  who  spend  their  lives  in  ministering  to  the 
luxuries  of  other  rich  persons  and  much  of  their  profits 
in  luxury  for  themselves,  but  who  would  regard  almost 
as  a  lost  soul  a  son  who  wanted  to  become  a  philosopher 
or  a  scholar  or  a  painter  ?  I  have  myself  heard  a  clergy- 
man speak  about  a  brilliant  school  contemporary  of  his 
who  had  remained  all  his  life  an  Oxford  don  as  one 
would  speak  of  a  respectable  man  who  had  taken  to 
drink  or  otherwise  gone  to  the  bad.  Had  he  gone  to 
the  Bar  and  made  a  fortune,  that  would  have  been  all 
right :  had  he  taken  Orders  and  worked  in  the  slums, 
that  would  have  been  still  better.  Had  he  emerged 
from  the  slums  to  become  a  Bishop,  that  would  have 
been  best  of  all.  But  the  work  of  a  *'  mere  scholar," 
why,  that  was  to  make  the  worst  of  both  worlds ! 

Once  again  then,  if  we  accept  this  modem  view  of 
Morality,  which  after  all  by  this  time  most  Christian 
people  do  accept,  does  it  not  imply  that  we  are  desert- 
ing the  teaching  of  Christ  ?  Most  emphatically  I 
maintain  that  we  are  not — \mder  two  conditions,  two 
conditions  which  practically  come  to  very  much  the 
same  thing :  (i)  In  the  first  place,  we  must  recognize 
that  these  things,  which  we  consider  to  be  elements  in 
the  true  good  for  ourselves,  are  elements  in  the  true 
good  for  others  also  ;  and  that  therefore  it  becomes  a 
Christian  duty  to  promote  them  for  others  as  well  as 
for  ourselves — for  the  many  as  well  as  the  few — iQ€ 


The  Principle  of  Development  207 

other  people,  other  classes,  other  races  than  our  own. 
Selfish,  dilettante,  anti-social  ^stheticism  is,  indeed, 
hopelessly  at  variance  with  the  fundamental  principle  of 
Christ's  teaching.  A  speciaUzed  devotion  of  one's  Ufe 
to  Art  or  Science,  to  Literature  or  to  learning,  can  only 
be  justified  from  the  Christian  point  of  view  when  in 
some  way  or  other  the  results  of  such  a  life-work  are 
shared  by  the  community  in  general  or  some  part  of 
it.  For  the  Christian  the  intellectual  or  artistic  life 
must  become  a  Ministry.  (2)  Secondly,  even  for  our- 
selves moral  goodness  must  be  put  higher  than  intel- 
lectual excellence  of  whatever  kind.  The  view  of  life 
which  regards  Art  as  a  sort  of  optional  alternative  or 
substitute  for  Religion  and  Morality — a  view  of  which 
there  are  traces  in  the  language  of  many  Philosophers 
and  other  writers  besides  those  who  would  seriously 
maintain  such  a  thesis — cannot  by  any  ingenuity 
whatever  be  represented  as  a  legitimate  development 
of  Christ's  Morality.  The  MoraHty  which  I  have 
sketched — that  is  to  say,  the  Morality  practically 
accepted  by  most  cultivated  Christians  of  the  present 
day — is  not  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  Christ's  teaching  ;  but  it  involves,  and  it 
should  be  most  fully  recognized  that  it  involves,  a  con- 
siderable development  of  what  actually  was  taught  by 
Christ  Himself. 

Christ's  teaching  was  world-renouncing,  if  by  that 
is  meant  that  He  put  universal  human  interests  before 
self  and  the  spiritual  above  the  carnal :    and  in  that 


2o8  Conscience  and  Christ 

sense  Christian  Morality  must  always  be  world- 
renouncing.  Christ's  teaching  was  worid-affirming  in 
so  far  as  He  held  that  there  are  many  good  things  in  life 
which  should  not  be  renounced,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
should  be  promoted  for  others  as  well  as  for  ourselves. 
In  that  sense  there  was  for  Him  no  incompatibility 
between  world-renunciation  and  world-affirmation. 
Nor  need  there  be  for  us,  though  we  may  recognize 
the  value  of  many  things  which  are  not  explicitly  recog- 
nized in  His  actual  ideal :  and  so  long  as  we  limit  our 
own  enjoyment  of  these  good  things  by  the  claims  of 
others  to  their  due  share  in  them. 

No  doubt  when  we  turn  from  Christ's  own  teaching 
to  the  Morality  of  the  Christian  Church  in  the  past, 
there  is  more  truth  in  the  contrast — more  ground  for 
the  complaint  that  Christian  Morality  has  been  world- 
renoimcing,  in  a  sense  in  which  ours  is  not  and  cannot 
be.  And  yet,  after  all,  this  is  by  no  means  the  whole 
truth.  Up  to  a  certain  point  the  actual  development 
of  the  Christian  ideal  has  been  towards  an  incre 
recognition  of  the  value  of  many  things  in  life 
which  Christ's  own  inmiediate  followers  turned  aside.; 
Those  very  complaints  of  the  "  acute  secularizing  '^ 
of  the  Chiu'ch  in  the  post-apostoUc  age  with  whic 
Hamack  has  made  us  famiUar,  testify  to  the  fact  t] 
the  development  was  not  all  in  the  direction  of 
creasing  renunciation  of  things  in  the  world  whic 
were  harmless  or  even  desirable.  Unless  Hamac 
is  really  prepared  to  say  that  all  these  things 


The  Principle  of  Development  209 

wrong  (which  it  is  impossible  to  suppose),  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  he  is  justified  in  speaking  of  such 
'*  secularizing*'  as  though  it  necessarily  involved  a 
decline  from  the  true  Christian  ideal,  and  whether  he 
ought  not  to  regard  it  rather  as  an  evidence  of  that 
work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Christian  Society  which  the 
fourth  Gospel  had  foretold.  Even  St.  Paul  himself, 
though  his  ideal  was  more  affected  than  that  of  his 
Master  by  the  thought  of  the  coming  Parousia,  found 
that  an  excessive  preoccupation  with  that  thought, 
an  excessive  devotion  to  talking,  speculating,  medi- 
tating about  spiritual  things,  militated  against  true 
spirituality.  He  therefore  laid  down  in  a  very  emphatic 
way  the  paramount  duty  of  earning  one's  own  living, 
— and  something  more  that  we  may  have  to  give  to 
those  who  are  in  need.^  All  the  industrial  virtues  to 
which  Christianity  has  sometimes  been  supposed  to  be 
indifferent  are  enjoined  by  implication  in  St.  Paul's 
precepts  to  the  idle  busybodies  of  Thessalonica.  This 
so-called  secularizing  of  the  Christian  ideal  may  better 
be  described  as  a  perfectly  legitimate  and  indispensable 
development  of  it. 

The  history  of  the  first  four  Christian  centuries  is 
to  a  large  extent  a  record  of  the  gradual  absorption 
into  Christian  Ufe  of  what  was  best  in  pagan  Literature, 
Art,  Philosophy,  even  Ethics  and  Theology.  From 
political  life  Christians  were  necessarily  excluded, 
though  they  had  politics  of  their  own  within  the  Church 

^  2  Thess.  iii.  6-14  ;  Rom.  xii.  11 ;  Eph.  iv.  28.    Cf.  i  Tim.  v.  13. 


210  Conscience  and  Christ 

which  afforded  a  sphere  for  great  statesmen  and 
administrators  and  for  much  social  activity  of  a 
highly  democratic  kind.  When  the  Christianization 
of  the  Empire  threw  open  political  office  to  Chris- 
tians, the  work  of  Government  came  to  be  recog- 
nized as  a  possible  sphere  of  Christian  service ;  and 
much  of  what  we  may  call  the  political  morality 
of  the  ancient  world  was  embodied  in  the  current 
conceptions  of  Christian  duty.  Though  the  old 
sharp  distinction  between  the  Church  (now  very 
largely  identified  with  the  clergy  and  the  monks) 
and  the  world  to  a  large  extent  survived,  the  mere 
fact  that  the  writings  of  Cicero  were  highly  popular 
with  the  Fathers,  and  the  Ethics  and  Politics  of 
Aristotle  with  the  Schoolmen,  shows  how  much  of 
the  ancient  ideal  of  Ufe  was  absorbed  into  the  current 
teaching  of  the  Church.  Hundreds  of  pages  of  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas'  Summa  Theologica  are  little  more  than 
a  reduction  to  scholastic  form  of  the  Ethics  of  Aristotle. 
The  highest  Ethics  of  the  ancient  world  were,  to  use 
Professor  Gardner's  happy  expression,  **  baptized  into 
Christ  *' ;  and  that  means  that  the  ideal  practically 
accepted  by  the  Christian  world  absorbed  considerable 
elements  of  the  best  pagan  thought.  Protestantism 
has  still  more  fully  and  unreservedly  recognized  all 
kinds  of  pubUc  office  and  all  lay  callings  as  possible 
spheres  for  the  exercise  of  the  highest  Christian 
virtues.  The  very  Theology  of  the  Church  represents 
a  fusion  of  ancient  Philosophy  with  the  Theology  of 


The  Principle  of  Development  211 

Judaism  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  His  Apostles. 
After  a  long  struggle,  pagan  Uterature  was  accepted 
as  part  of  the  training  of  Christian  youth;  and  the 
pretence  that  Grammar  and  Rhetoric  were  cultivated 
only  as  conducive  to  the  understanding  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture was  laid  aside.  In  the  later  Middle  Ages  it  is  not 
too  much  to  say  that  the  promotion  of  Culture  was 
recognized  as  one  of  the  duties  of  the  clergy — even  of 
the  Friars,  although  there  was  still  a  disposition  to 
justify  secular  knowledge  either  (as  in  the  case  of  Law 
and  Medicine)  on  account  of  its  practical  utility  to  the 
commonwealth,  or  (in  the  case  of  liberal  studies)  to 
regard  them  as  in  some  way  preparatory  and  con- 
ducive to  the  all-important  study  of  Theology.  The 
Renaissance  led  to  a  still  further  relaxation  of  the 
ancient  Christian  austerity  and  a  still  further  recog- 
nition of  Culture — even  in  the  Catholicism  of  the 
Counter-reformation,  still  more  so  in  Protestantism. 

But,  of  course,  there  was  another  side  to  this  matter. 
Side  by  side  with  this  broadening  and  expansion  in  the 
Christian  conception  of  life — this  absorption  into  it 
of  the  best  elements  in  the  pagan  world  which  it  had 
killed — there  was  a  continuous  narrowing  of  it ;  an 
increase  of  Asceticism,  anti-intellectualism,  other- 
worldliness.  The  tendency  began  to  assert  itself  very 
early.  Even  the  Apostolic  Church  never  quite  ac- 
quiesced in  Christ's  refusal  to  enjoin  fasting ;  the 
post-apostolic  Church  began  to  tamper  with  the  text 
of  the  New  Testament  to  conceal  the  fact,  although 


212  Conscience  and  Christ 

even  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  it  is  recognized  that 
"  bodily  exercise  [i.e.  Asceticism]  profiteth  little."^  The 
severer  Asceticism  was  at  first  a  characteristic  rather 
of  heresy  than  of  the  Church.  But  even  withm  the 
Church  there  was  an  increasing  tendency  both  toward 
Asceticism  in  its  ordinary  sense  and  towards  the 
devotion  of  life  to  religious  observances  and  religious 
contemplation.  And  this  gradually  hardened  into 
Monasticism.  It  is  important  to  note  that  the 
tendency  to  exalt  contemplation,  asceticism,  and 
celibacy  was  a  tendency  of  the  times  by  no  means 
peculiar  to  Christianity.  Neo-platonism  had  more 
to  do  with  it  than  the  teaching  of  Jesus  or  of  His 
Apostles.  It  is  not  improbable  that  definite  Monasticism 
was  an  imitation  of  paganism.  And  the  introduction 
of  Monasticism  implies  that  the  collision  between  the 
two  kinds  of  development  which  we  have  seen  going 
on  in  the  Christian  Church  has  now  become  so  marked 
that  the  Church  has  split  up  into  two  sections. 
There  is  now  an  increased  toleration  of  **  worldly  " 
pursuits,  amusements,  culture  for  the  many ;  while 
the  renunciation  of  these  things  which  is  demanded 
of  the  few — of  those  who  aim  at  a  perfect  fulfilment  of 
the  Christian  ideal — has  become  more  extreme.  More- 
over, the  doctrine  of  original  sin  and  the  whole  system 
of  thought  which  is  associated  with  it — the  idea  that 
the  world  is  wholly  under  the  dominion  of  the  wicked 
one — though  its  influence  has,  I  think,  been  exag- 
*  I  Tim.  iv.  8.     Some  translate  "  for  a  little  time." 


The  Principle  of  Development  213 

gerated,  undoubtedly  deepened  the  cleavage  between 
those  ideals  of  life  which  we  commonly  associate  with 
the  ancient  Greeks  and  the  ideal  which  was  set  before 
Christians.  Thus  there  was  a  tendency  all  through 
the  patristic  and  medieval  periods  to  an  ideal  of 
life  which  was  gloomy,  austere,  intensely  other- 
worldly. Even  in  the  austerest  Religionists  of  these 
periods  there  are,  indeed,  to  be  found  many  sayings 
and  ideas  which  are  quite  inconsistent  with  the  view 
that  the  world  lay  under  a  curse,  that  all  its  good 
things  were  created  by  God  simply  to  give  men  the 
opportunity  of  earning  merit  by  renouncing  them. 
St.  Augustine  admits  that  there  is  some  good  in  all 
that  exists.  The  patristic  writings — those  of  St. 
Chrysostom,  for  instance — show  an  appreciation  of 
the  beauty  of  Nature  of  a  kind  which  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  think  of  as  peculiarly  modern,  and  which 
we  certainly  should  find  it  hard  to  parallel  in  the 
classical  writers  of  Antiquity.  The  doctrine  of  original 
sin  in  its  Augustinian  form  was  not  universally  held, 
nor  the  view  of  the  Universe  which  was  associated 
with  it. 

Ascetic  as  they  are  in  their  attitude  towards  all 
bodily  pleasures,  there  is  no  anti-intellectualism  in  the 
great  Alexandrians,  Clement  and  Origen ;  and  in 
the  Greek  Church  generally  there  was  much  less  of  it 
than  in  the  West.  On  the  whole  even  the  Latins  do 
not  condemn  intellectual  activities,  though  their 
attitude  towards  the  pagan  classics  was  hesitating  and 


214  Conscience  and  Christ 

uncertain.  Art,  too,  was  never  condemned  (except  in 
so  far  as  it  involved  Idolatry),  though  it  was  largely 
consecrated  to  the  service  of  ReUgion.  Immense 
qualifications  must  be  introduced  before  the  epithet 
"  world-renouncing "  can  be  accepted  as  a  true 
account  even  of  the  patristic  and  medieval  ideals. 
On  the  whole,  however,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the 
ideal  of  other-worldUness — the  ideal  which  made  it 
the  chief  object  of  the  present  life  to  escape  the  pains 
of  Hell  and  to  win  the  joys  of  Heaven  largely  by  the 
renunciation  of  all  joy  in  the  present — does  represent 
the  predominant  tone  both  of  the  later  patristic  and 
of  the  medieval  Church. 

And  it  is  true  also  (as  has  recently  been  contended 
by  Professor  Troeltsch)  that  Protestantism — as  judged 
by  its  formal  expressions,  by  its  official  professions, 
and  by  the  vein  of  sentiment  prevalent  in  some  of  its 
religious  circles — has  not  wholly  thrown  off  this  other- 
worldliness.  By  abolisliing  purgatory,  by  the  em- 
phasis which  it  laid  on  the  Augustinian  doctrines  of 
election  and  arbitrary  decrees,  by  withdrawing  to 
a  great  extent  the  encouragement  which  medieval 
Christianity  practically  conceded  to  Art  imder  cover 
of  an  often  merely  nominal  enUstment  of  it  in  the 
service  of  Rehgion,  it  has  even  in  some  ways  em- 
phasized the  austerity  of  the  ecclesiastical  ideal,  and 
diminished  the  joy  of  human  existence.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  other  ways  it  has  enormously  mitigated  the 
antagonism   between   ecclesiastical    Christianity    and 


The  Principle  of  Development  215 

the  best  elements  of  the  old  Hellenic  ideal  in  more, 
and  more  direct,  ways,  I  think,  than  Troeltsch  is  dis- 
posed to  admit.  Protestantism  has  never  favoured 
the  more  extreme  kinds  of  Asceticism.  Its  doctrine 
of  salvation  by  faith  only,  anti-moral  as  its  tendency 
has  often  been,  did  at  least  put  a  stop  to  all  devices 
for  winning  Heaven  or  escaping  Hell  by  self-torture 
or  mere  ecclesiastical  observance.  It  abolished  the 
hard-and-fast  distinction  between  the  religious  and 
the  secular  life,  and  discouraged  all  monastic  with- 
drawal from  the  world.  It  peremptorily  refused  to 
recognize  any  moral  superiority  in  the  celibate  life. 
It  has  always  acknowledged,  fully  and  ungrudgingly, 
the  possibility  of  leading  the  most  religious  life  in  the 
most  secular  callings.  If  the  clergy  of  Protestantism 
have  sometimes  claimed  a  control  over  life  which,  if 
conceded,  would  have  been  injurious  to  liberty  and 
intellectual  progress,  they  have  claimed  it  rather  as 
exponents  and  interpreters  of  a  divine  law,  than  as 
having  any  jus  divinum  to  rule  men's  consciences : 
and  consequently  Protestant  pastors  have  seldom  been 
able  effectively  to  exercise  this  control  except  where 
they  have  really  represented  the  moral  consciousness 
of  the  community  for  the  time  being. 

It  is  possible,  of  course,  to  suggest  (as  has  been  done 
by  Professor  Troeltsch)  that  the  contribution  of 
Protestantism  to  intellectual  progress  and  emancipa- 
tion has  been  due  rather  to  its  accidental  association 
with  the  Renaissance  than  to  its  own  official  prin- 


2i6  Conscience  and  Christ 

ciples.  But  the  Renaissance  had  so  large  a  share  in 
producing  Protestantism  that  it  becomes  a  very 
speculative  enquiry  to  ask  how  much  was  due  to 
Protestantism,  and  how  much  to  the  Renaissance. 
Protestantism  without  the  Renaissance  is  a  mere 
abstraction.  Protestantism  without  the  Renaissance 
would  certainly  not  be  the  Protestantism  that  we 
know.  Doubtless  there  was  from  the  first  an  inherent 
inconsistency  between  some  of  the  ideas  which  Protes- 
tantism took  over  from  medieval  Catholicism  and  other 
ideas  which  it  owed  to  the  New  Learning,  or  to  that 
New  Testament  which  the  New  Learning  had  given 
back  to  the  Church.  And  the  change  which  has  taken 
place  in  the  ethical  development  of  Protestantism 
since  the  days  of  the  Reformers  and  of  the  Puritan 
Revolution  in  England  may  be  said  to  be  due  to  a 
gradual  triumph  of  the  Renaissance-element  in  Protes- 
tantism over  its  medieval  element.  But,  whether  we 
put  it  do>\Ti  to  a  direct  or  to  an  indirect  effect  of 
Protestantism,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  ideal 
which  most  modem  Christians  in  their  hearts  accept 
does  involve  a  very  considerable  departure  from  the 
ideals  either  of  the  Middle  Ages  or  of  early  Protestant- 
ism. There  is  then  a  certain,  but  only  a  certain, 
measure  of  truth  in  the  now  somewhat  hackneyed 
assertion  that  Christianity  in  the  past  has  been  "  world- 
renouncing,"  while,  in  the  form  in  which  most  modem 
Christians  accept  it,  it  has  become  '*  world-affirming." 
Of  course,  it  may  be  contended  that,  in  so  far  as  this 


The  Principle  of  Development  217 

is  so,  modern  Christianity  is  wrong.  There  are  people 
who  will  be  prepared  to  contend  that  the  world- 
renouncing  medieval  ideal  was  right,  that  it  alone  is 
faithful  to  the  spirit  of  the  Master's  teaching,  and  that, 
if  it  differed  in  any  way  from  that  teaching,  it  was  the 
legitimate  development  of  it.  This  view  is  sufficiently 
often  asserted — sometimes  in  real  earnest,  more  often, 
I  think,  in  a  spirit  of  sentimental  admiration  for  a  past 
which  the  critics  know  cannot  be  revived  and  have  no 
intention  of  imitating  even  at  a  discreet  distance — to 
make  it  worth  while  for  us  seriously  to  ask  ourselves 
w^hether  we  are  really  prepared  to  accept  this  world- 
renouncing  interpretation  of  Christianity.  Few,  I  sup- 
pose, will  quarrel  with  my  taking  the  '*  Imitatio  Christi" 
as  a  representative  of  the  old  medieval  ideal  on  its 
monastic  and  world-renouncing  side.  It  is  by  no  means 
an  extreme  representation  of  that  ideal.  It  emanates 
from  that  reUgious  movement  of  the  later  Middle  Age 
in  Germany  and  the  Low  Countries  which  was  largely 
a  movement  towards  a  more  spiritual  Christianity,  and 
which  culminated  in  the  Reformation.  There  is  in  it 
little  advocacy  of  austerities.  It  is  full  of  moral 
maxims  which  go  straight  home  to  the  most  modern 
conscience — maxims  about  the  control  of  temper, 
charity  towards  individuals,  abstinence  from  severe 
judgements  of  others,  patience,  humility,  self-examina- 
tion, penitence.  But  most  of  us  do  not  really  think 
that  the  highest  kind  of  life  is  to  renounce  all  liberty  or 
responsibility  for  one's  own  acts,  to  be  under  complete 


2i8  Conscience  and  Christ 

obedience  to  another  human  being,  to  be  alone  and 
in  a  cell  for  as  many  hours  a  day  as  possible,  and  to 
occupy  nearly  the  whole  day  in  religious  services,  prayer, 
or  meditation.  The  main  theme  of  the  "Imitatio" 
is  the  disparagement  of  all  worldly  affairs,  of  business 
as  well  as  pleasure,  of  all  secular  joys,  of  all  secular 
learning  and  Uterature — even  of  sacred  learning 
beyond  what  is  absolutely  required  for  instructing  the 
individual  soul  how  to  get  to  heaven.  There  is  singu- 
larly little  about  works  of  charity  or  philanthropy 
even  in  their  most  conventional  forms,  or  about  being 
useful  to  other  people  even  in  the  most  directly 
spiritual  ways.  We  do,  indeed,  know  that  Thomas 
k  Kempis  sometimes  preached  and  taught ;  and  the 
mere  fact  that  he  wrote  his  reflections  down  for  the 
benefit  of  others  shows  that  he  was  by  no  means  an  idle 
or  useless  or  spiritually  selfish  person.  But  even  this 
measure  of  altruistic  work  seems  almost  a  deviation 
from  the  ideal  which  he  sets  before  his  readers.  Most 
modem  Christians  outside  the  Roman  CathoUc  Church 
and  many  of  those  within  it  would  regard  the  ideal  of 
Thomas  k  Kempis,  taken  seriously  and  literally,  as  at 
the  best  a  very  one-sided  ideal.  Even  those  who  would 
defend  it  as  an  ideal  life  for  some  persons  would  wholly 
refuse  to  follow  him  in  condenming  or  at  least  dis- 
paraging, as  he  would  actually  have  done,  the  life  of 
the  poUtician,  of  the  lawyer,  the  merchant,  the  crafts- 
man, the  scholar,  the  artist.  If  we  do  reject  it,  we 
have  to  admit  that  the  ideal  of  modern  Christianity 


The  Principle  of  Development  219 

is  not  the  same  as  that  of  the  Middle  Ages.  The 
*'  Imitatio "  does,  indeed,  represent  only  one  of  the 
numerous  ideals  which  express  themselves  in  the  life  of 
the  patristic  and  the  medieval  Church.  It  is  far  more 
world-renouncing,  for  instance,  than  the  vigorous  and 
highly  intellectual  ideal  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.  But 
it  does  represent  a  type  of  life  which  it  has  been  the 
general  tendency  of  the  Christianity  of  the  past  to 
put  highest.  There  is,  as  I  have  so  often  said,  no 
arguing  about  ultimate  ideals.  I  can  only  say  that 
most  of  our  contemporaries — most  of  the  very  best 
men  in  instructed  Christian  circles — do  fully  recognize 
the  value  in  different  degrees  of  many  things  which 
Thomas  a  Kempis  treats  as  contemptible  vanities. 
And  I  believe  that  the  modem  world  is  right.  A 
development  has  taken  place,  and  a  development  in 
which  I  for  one  am  prepared  to  recognize  the  work  of 
God's  Spirit.  In  so  far  as  the  austere  religionists  are 
still  disposed  to  the  disparagement  of  Art  and  Science 
and  Literature  and  Learning,  I  believe  them  to  be 
wrong,  and  I  recognize  the  necessity  for  a  still  further 
development  of  the  Christian  ideal  in  this  direction. 

But  in  this  development  are  we  moving  further  and 
further  away  from  the  Christianity  of  Christ  ?  Most 
emphatically  I  believe  we  are  not.  The  ideal  of 
Thomas  a  Kempis  was  very  unlike  the  ideal  of  Jesus — 
much  more  so  than  the  ideal  of  the  best  modern 
Christianity.  The  view  of  God's  character  which 
Christ  taught  was  quite  unlike  that  of  those  who  made 


220  Conscience  and  Christ 

all  life  an  anxious  striving  to  escape  from  Hell.  The 
idea  of  God's  Fatherhood  is  scarcely  to  be  detected  in 
the  meditations  of  Thomas  a  Kempis.  The  God  of 
Jesus  promised  forgiveness  of  sins  on  the  one  condition 
of  sincere  repentance  :  a  life  of  solitary  meditation — 
to  say  nothing  of  self-torture — was  not  required  as 
the  price  of  forgiveness.  The  Christ  of  whom  we  hear 
so  much  in  the  *'  Imitatio  "  has  not  very  much  in 
common  with  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  The  historical 
Christ  did  not  live  in  a  cell,  but  did  go  about  doing  good. 
That  solitary,  world-renouncing  absorption  in  one's 
own  soul  which  commended  itself  to  Thomas  k  Kempis 
would  have  seemed  to  Him  mere  selfishness,  and  not 
at  all  the  way  to  enter  the  Kingdom. 

It  will  no  doubt  be  thought  by  some  that  the  element 
of  Christ's  teaching  which  we  have  left  standing,  if 
we  fully  accept  this  principle  of  Development,  is  a 
very  small  one.  It  comes,  it  may  be  said,  to  little 
more  than  this — that  Morality  consists  in  the  imsel- 
fish  pursuit  of  the  good  for  all  men,  and  in  the  recog- 
nition of  the  supreme  value  of  moral  goodness  as  the 
highest  and  most  important  element  of  that  good. 
And  that,  it  may  be  urged,  is  a  very  small  element  in 
a  moral  system — one  which  might  be  equally  accepted 
by  those  who  in  practice  would  adopt  very  different 
maxims  of  conduct  and  recognize  very  different  ideals 
of  Ufe.  I  should  reply.  Yes,  if  you  compare  the  sheer 
bulk  of  these  precepts  with  the  mass  of  detailed  rules 
which  are  required  in  practice  for  the  guidance  of  our 


The  Principle  of  Development  221 

complicated  modern  life,  their  bulk  is,  indeed,  small ; 
but  ethically  speaking  it  is  the  one  thing  needful.  And 
no  one  has  ever  taught  this  supremely  important 
truth  with  the  same  clearness,  consistency,  and  force 
as  Jesus,  or  illustrated  it  so  forcibly  by  the  whole  of 
the  life  and  character.  And,  therefore,  in  spite  of  all 
the  enormous  development  which  has  taken  place  in 
the  past,  and  which  doubtless  will  take  place  in  the 
future  in  our  conception  of  the  good  in  detail,  and  in 
the  rules  which  we  recognize  as  necessary  to  the 
promotion  of  it,  those  who  accept  this  principle  of 
universal  love  as  the  supreme  and  all-important  ethical 
command — ^with  all  the  corollaries  and  implications  of 
it  taught  by  none  so  penetratingly  as  by  Him — are 
true  disciples  of  Christ.  And,  in  so  far  as  the  modern 
Church  is  getting  rid  of  so  many  elements  of  the  eccle- 
siastical ideal  which  were  inconsistent  with  this 
supreme  principle,  we  may  claim  that  it  is  only  going 
back  to  Christ — to  the  very  heart  of  Christ's  own 
teaching.  From  one  point  of  view  the  difference 
between  the  moral  standard  (say)  of  the  Middle  Age 
and  that  of  the  best  modern  Christianity  is  undoubtedly 
a  development  which  owes  much  to  other  sources  than 
the  actual  teaching  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles — the 
teaching  of  ancient  Greece  and  Rome,  of  the  Renais- 
sance, of  modem  teachers  and  modern  movements 
which  have  not  been  avowedly  and  at  all  points 
Christian  ;  but  from  another  point  of  view  it  has  been 
a  real  return  to  the  Christianity  of  Christ.     In  its 


222  Conscience  and  Christ 

broader  philanthropy,  in  its  tolerance,  in  the  rejection 
of  immoral  devices  for  getting  rid  of  punishment 
without  getting  rid  of  sin,  in  the  more  systematic 
effort  not  merely  to  cure  existing  evils,  but  to  prevent 
their  recurrence,  in  the  attempt  to  remould  all  social 
life  in  accordance  with  the  ideal  of  human  brother- 
hood— in  the  Christianity  which  recognizes  these 
things  as  part  of  the  Christian  ideal,  however  little 
as  yet  they  form  part  of  average  Christian  practice,  we 
may  recognize  that  there  has  really  been  a  return 
to  the  spirit  of  the  Master's  teaching  even  when  these 
things  involve  much  development  of  the  letter.  There 
is  more  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  in  the  modem  ideal  than 
there  was  in  the  teaching  of  St.  Augustine  or  of  Thomas 
k  Kempis. 

And  here  I  should  like  to  guard  against  two  possible 
misunderstandings  of  what  I  have  said.  In  the  first 
place  do  not  suppose  for  one  moment  that  I  am  at- 
tempting to  represent  that  all  the  current  modem 
ideals  are  in  harmony  with  a  legitimate  development 
of  Christ's  own  ideal.  It  is,  indeed,  an  absurdity  to 
talk  as  though  there  was  only  one  ideal  of  Morality  in 
existence  at  any  one  time  or  place.  It  is  absurd  to  do 
this  in  regard  to  the  patristic  age  or  the  medieval  period, 
although  at  that  time  all  the  competing  ideals  pro- 
fessed at  least  to  be  Christian.  It  is  a  still  greater 
absurdity  at  the  present  day  to  speak  as  though  there 
were  one  single  ideal  of  life  which  we  can  call  essentially 
the  modem  view  whether  within  the  limits  of  professed 


The  Principle  of  Development  223 

Christianity  or  outside  it.  And  some  of  our  modem 
ideals  I  do  not  attempt  to  represent  as  Christian  at  all. 
More  and  more  in  fact  the  real  battleground  between 
the  Church  and  its  foes  will  turn,  I  believe,  on  this 
question  of  the  moral  ideal :  more  and  more  the 
theological  differences  themselves  will  be  such  as 
directly  flow  from  the  ethical  differences.  Of  those 
w^ho  seriously  accept  the  Christian  ideal  of  self-sacrifice 
for  the  common  good  and  whose  conception  of  that 
good  is  not  mere  indulgence  of  the  flesh,  we  can  say 
that,  inasmuch  as  they  are  not  against  us  they  are  for 
us— even  though  they  may  not  always  follow  with  us 
on  theological  matters.  Nietzsche's  ideal  of  pure 
selfishness ;  the  ideals  of  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells  in  the 
matter  of  sexual  relations  ;  the  exaltation  of  aesthetic 
culture  above  humanity  and  charity  to  which  there  is 
at  least  a  strong  tendency  in  many  quarters ;  the 
defence  of  unlimited,  cruel,  relentless  competition 
which  sometimes  (quite  illogically  I  venture  to  think) 
attempts  to  ground  itself  on  the  Darwinian  survival 
of  the  fittest — these  and  many  other  current  moralities 
or  immoralities  can  never  be  '*  baptized  into  Christ/'  ^ 
There  is  a  sense  in  which  we  may  justly  say  that  the 
modem  Christian  ideal  *'  accepts  "  or  '*  affirms  "  the 
world,  but  not  the  world  just  as  it  stands  with  all  its 
commonplace,    conventional   moralities   and   its   still 

*  I  might  add  now  the  international  Immoralism  of  Treitschke 
and  Bernhardi,  more  or  less  sanctioned  by  not  a  few  German 
Theologians,  Roman  Catholic,  Liberal,  and  Orthodox  Protestant. 


224  Conscience  and  Christ 

lower  practice.  There  is  still  and  always  will  be  a 
"  world  "  which  the  Christian  has  got  to  renounce,  as 
remorselessly  as  ever. 

Secondly,  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  in  what  I 
have  said  as  to  the  return  of  the  modem  Church  to  the 
ideal  of  Christ  Himself,  I  am  attempting  to  defend  the 
version  of  the  Christian  ideal  which  is  often  accepted 
even  in  professedly  reUgious  communities  and  circles 
as  one  which  is  really  in  accordance  with  the  ideas  of 
Christ.  The  most  that  I  have  ventured  to  claim  for 
the  ideal  which  modem  Christians  acknowledge  is 
that  we  have  made  a  beginning  towards  a  retum  to 
the  true  spirit  of  Jesus.  If  there  is  one  thing  which  can 
be  claimed  as  a  definite  discovery  of  modem  Chris- 
tianity, as  a  really  new  idea  in  Christian  Ethics,  it  is 
this — that  we  have  got  not  merely  to  remedy  social 
evils  when  they  have  once  arisen,  but  to  take  measures 
against  their  arising.  The  great  defect  of  the  Chris- 
tian ideal  as  it  has  commonly  been  understood  in  all 
past  times,  whether  we  think  of  the  ApostoUc  Church, 
of  the  patristic  Church,  of  medieval  Christendom,  or 
of  modem  Protestantism,  is  this — that  Christian 
Charity  has  contented  itself  far  too  much  with  curing 
sin,  with  reUeving  suffering,  \vith  removing  injustices, 
with  mitigating  poverty,  instead  of  trying  so  syste- 
matically to  organize  human  society  that  suffering  and 
injustice  shall,  as  far  as  possible,  not  arise,  and  that 
undeserved  poverty  shall  altogether  cease.  We  have 
only  just  begun  to  recognize  this  as  the  true  aim  of 


The  Principle  of  Development  225 

Christian  morality  :  how  much  remains  to  be  altered 
in  our  ordinary  manner  of  Uving,  in  our  ordinary 
standards  of  comfort  and  expenditure,  in  our  ordinary 
manner  of  doing  business,  in  the  manners  and  view  of 
life  which  are  practically  received  and  acted  upon  by 
most  religious  people,  I  must  forbear  to  estimate.  I 
will  only  insist  that  the  change  that  seems  to  be  called 
for  is  very  great  and  far-reaching.  There  may  be  many 
different  opinions  as  to  the  way  in  which  human 
society  ought  to  be  reorganized  so  as  to  realize  the 
closest  possible  approximation  to  Christ's  ideal  of  a 
society  in  which  all  men  treat  each  other  as  brothers. 
That  such  a  reorganization  is  required,  and  that 
Christians  are  bound  to  strive  for  it,  is  a  matter  about 
which  there  ought  to  be  no  doubt  or  difference  of 
opinion  among  Christians.  We  have  not  the  excuses 
which  Christians  of  past  ages  could  plead  for  neglect- 
ing this  side  of  Christian  Ethics.  We  do  not  beUeve 
that  in  consequence  of  the  first  man's  sin  the  world  has 
been  given  over  to  the  dominion  of  the  devil.  We  do 
not  believe  that  human  nature  has  been  so  deeply 
corrupted  that  no  trace  of  the  divine  image  is  left  in  it ; 
we  do  not  believe  that  the  world  is  just  on  the  point 
of  coming  to  an  end,  so  that  there  is  no  use  in  trying 
to  make  things  better  for  those  who  come  after  us ; 
we  do  not  believe  that  in  moderation  the  pleasure  and 
enjoyment  in  which  rich  people  indulge — still  less 
their  education  and  their  intellectual  activities — are 
so  hopelessly  vile  and  contemptible  that  it  would  be 
Q 


226  Conscience  and  Christ 

positively  wrong  to  try  and  extend  them  in  some 
measure  to  the  j)oor.  And  therefore,  whatever  the 
spirit  of  Christ  may  have  prescribed  to  those  who  did 
entertain  these  beUefs,  that  same  spirit  prescribes  a 
very  different  course  to  ourselves.  And,  whatever 
view  we  may  hold  as  to  the  proper  means  of  social 
regeneration,  one  thing  is  certain.  It  is  simply  im- 
possible that  the  poor  can  ever  be  made  even  a 
little  richer  without  the  rich  being  made,  whether 
by  legislation  or  by  their  own  volimtary  action,  a  good 
deal  poorer.  And  therefore  it  must  not  be  supposed 
that  the  modem  interpretation  of  Christ's  ideal  will 
ever  cease  to  include  the  element  of  self-sacrifice.  Self- 
inflicted  pain,  pain  for  its  own  sake,  is  no  part  of 
Christ's  ideal :  self-sacrifice  for  the  sake  of  others — as 
a  means  to  social  good — represents  the  very  central 
idea  of  all  Morality ;  and  it  is  just  because  it  does 
assert  the  supreme  value  and  necessity  of  this  self- 
sacrifice  for  the  good  of  all  in  a  way  that  no  other 
historical  religion  has  done,  that  Christ's  ideal  main- 
tains its  identity  through  all  the  inevitable  and  legiti- 
mate developments  in  detail  which  it  has  undergone  ; 
that  it  is  still  the  ideal  which  the  modem  world  wants, 
and  which  all  that  is  best  in  the  modem  world  con- 
sciously or  unconsciously  acknowledges. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTE  ON   CHRISTIAN  ETHICS  IN 
THE  APOSTOLIC  WRITINGS 

In  a  more  extended  course  the  natural  sequel  of  Lecture  V 
would  be  a  lecture,  or  several  lectures,  on  the  Ethics  of  the 
New  Testament  outside  the  actual  teaching  of  Christ,  but 
to  attempt  such  a  task  with  any  thoroughness  would  carry 
me  beyond  the  Umits  prescribed  by  the  scheme  of  these 
lectures  ;  and  if  all  the  New  Testament  writings  were  to  be 
included,  it  would  be  difficult  to  avoid  extending  the 
enquiry  some  way  into  the  early  history  of  the  Church,  for 
the  latest  New  Testament  writings  are  possibly  later  than 
some  uncanonical  writings.  In  lieu  of  any  such  systematic 
treatment,  I  will  endeavour  to  exhibit  in  very  brief  outhne 
the  chief  lines  of  development  which  Christian  Ethics 
underwent  in  the  hands  of  the  most  important  New 
Testament  writers. 

(i)  St.  Paul  was  probably  the  first  fully  to  grasp  the 
Universalism  implied  in  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  Himself, 
and  formally  to  proclaim  that  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law 
was  not  binding  on  Gentiles  ;  though  the  way  for  his  work 
was  largely  prepared  for  him  by  St.  Stephen  (Acts  vii.),  and 
the  men  of  Cyprus  and  Cyrene  who  for  the  first  time 
preached  Christianity  to  Gentiles  at  Antioch  (Acts  viii.  4  ; 
xi.  20).  St.  Paul  seems  personally  to  have  observed  the 
Law,  but  to  have  done  so  rather  as  a  matter  of  expediency 
and  national  custom  than  as  a  matter  of  strict  moral 
obligation.  He  refused  to  observe  the  letter  of  the  law, 
or  at  least  the  rabbinical  amplification  of  it,  in  so  far  as 

227 


228  Conscience  and  Christ 

that  forbade  social  and  religious  intercourse  with  Gentiles. 
This  principle  is  fully  accepted  by  all  the  other  New 
Testament  writings,  where  they  expUcitly  touch  upon  the 
subject.  This  Universalism  is  especially  prominent  in  the 
Johannine  writings,  which  (whoever  was  their  author)  are 
assuredly  not  independent  of  Pauline  influence. 

(2)  The  distinction  thus  effected  between  the  moral  and 
the  ceremonial  law  made  it  possible  for  the  Apostles  to 
assert  the  essential  principles  of  our  Lord's  teaching — the 
inclusion  of  all  MoraUty  in  the  duty  of  brotherly  love — in 
an  absolutely  explicit  way.  "  Owe  no  man  anything,  save 
to  love  one  another :  for  he  that  loveth  his  neighbour 
hath  fulfilled  the  law.  For  this.  Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery.  Thou  shalt  not  kill.  Thou  shalt  not  steal 
Thou  shalt  not  covet,  and  if  there  be  any  other  command- 
ment, it  is  sunmied  up  in  this  word,  namely,  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself "  (Rom.  xiii.  8,  9 ;  cf. 
also  Gal.  v.  14).  In  the  same  spirit  love  is  recognized 
as  superior  in  intrinsic  value  to  all  other  personal  qualities, 
even  to  spiritual  gifts  of  the  highest  value,  even  to  Faith 
and  to  Hope :  "  but  the  greatest  of  these  is  Charity  " 
(i  Cor.  xiii.  13).  Completely  consonant  with  this  is  the 
teaching  of  the  Johannine  writings.  "  This  is  the  message 
which  ye  heard  from  the  beginning,  that  we  should  love 
one  another"  (i  John  iii.  11).  *' He  that  loveth  not 
knoweth  not  God  ;  for  God  is  love  "  (i  John  iv.  8).  The 
whole  of  the  first  Epistle  is  a  magnificent  embodiment  of 
the  inmost  essence  of  Christ's  own  teaching.^  The  Epistle 
of  St.  James  has  been  supposed  to  have  a  Jewish  tone 
about  it,  but  nowhere  is  the  supremacy  and  all-inclusive- 
ness  of  the  conunand  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as 

*  The  same  may  be  said  of  many  portions  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
even  where  the  sayings  cannot  be  treated  as  actual  records  of  the 
Master's  teaching. 


The  Apostolic' Teaching  229 

thyself  more  fully  recognized^( James  ii.).     Cf.  i  Peter 
i.  22,  iii.  8,  iv.  8  ;  Heb.  xiii.  i. 

(3)  Those  special  virtues  and  duties  which,  though  they 
may  in  a  sense  be  regarded  as  all  embraced  in  Love  (since 
they  all  contribute  to  the  true  good  of  Humanity),  are  not 
obviously  coincident  with  mere  kindness,  are  enforced 
with  more  detail  than  in  the  teaching  of  our  Lord.  The 
necessity  for  such  enforcement  naturally  arose  with  the 
growth  of  organized  Christian  communities,  especially  of 
Gentile  communities  in  which  ordinary  Jewish  moral  ideas 
could  not  be  taken  for  granted.  In  particular  it  became 
necessary  to  insist  emphatically  on  abstinence  from  various 
sins  of  the  flesh,  from  drunkenness  and  revelling,  and  from 
"  filthy  talking"  (Rom.  xiii.  13 ;  i  Cor.  v.,  vi.  9-20;  Eph.  iv. 
19,  29  ;  V.  3-12  ;  I  Thess.  iv.  3-8  ;  i  Peter  ii.  11,  12  ;  iv. 
1--7).  There  is  for  the  most  part  nothing  in  this  teaching 
which  goes  beyond  ordinary  Jewish  ideals,  except  that  our 
Lord's  teaching  about  the  permanence  of  marriage  is  pre- 
supposed wherever  the  subject  is  touched  upon.  The 
doctrine  of  love  is  further  developed  and  applied  to  the 
details  of  personal  conduct  with  far  greater  minuteness 
than  is  the  case  in  the  teaching  of  Christ,  who  could  pre- 
suppose the  ordinary  Jewish  Morality,  and  who  aimed 
chiefly  at  arousing  conscience  and  insisting  upon  a  few 
great  principles,  especially  those  not  generally  recognized. 
Thus  we  get  in  St.  Paul  long  lists  of  virtues  or  quahties 
which  may  be  said  to  be  closely  akin  to  love,  and  of  the 
vices  which  are  opposed  to  it.  See  Rom.  i.  28-31 ;  xii. 
9-19  ;   Gal.  V.  16-26  ;   Col.  iii.  5-14. 

Among  the  virtues  specially  insisted  upon  are  Veracity 
and  Humility.  Both  of  these  are  based  upon  the  principle 
of  Love.  '*  Wherefore,  putting  away  falsehood,  speak  ye 
truth  each  one  with  his  neighbour ;  for  we  are  members 
one  of  another  "  (Eph.  iv.  25  ;  cf.  Col.  iii.  9).    j"  In  love  of 


230  Conscience  and  Christ 

the  brethren  be  tenderly  affectioned  one  to  another,  in 
honour  preferring  one  another  "  (Rom.  xii.  lo  ;  cf.  Phil, 
ii.  3,  4  ;  I  Peter  v.  5 ;  James  iv.  6).  In  various  other 
directions  the  duty  of  love  is  translated  into  distinct 
precepts.  In  all  the  Apostolic  ^\Titings  there  is  a  strong 
insistence  upon  the  duty  of  Almsgiving,  which  was  made 
particularly  necessary  by  the  circumstances  of  the  early 
Christian  Church  at  Jerusalem  and  by  the  prevalence  of 
petty  persecution :  the  organization  of  Charity  was  one 
main  function  of  the  Christian  commxmities  and  their 
leaders  (Rom.  xii.  8;  i  Cor.  ix.,  xvi.;  2  Cor.  viii.,  ix.,xi.  8,9). 
The  expectation  of  the  Parousia  and  the  reliance  upon 
extensive  Charity  from  the  Church  made  it  necessary  to 
insist  with  peculiar  emphasis  on  the  duty  of  all  to  work  for 
the  support  of  themselves  and  their  families  (Eph.  iv.  28  ; 
I  Thess.  iv.  II  :  2  Thess.  iii.  10-12). 

(4)  The  circumstances  of  the  early  Chiu-ch  raised  various 
questions  of  Casuistry,  which  demanded  explicit  solution 
for  the  guidance  both  of  individual  Christians  and  of  the 
Christian  Conmiunities  and  their  rulers.  Of  these  the 
most  important  were  the  question  of  meats  offered  to  idols 
(Rom.  xiv.  14  ;  i  Cor.  viii.,  x.) ;  intermarriage  with  the 
heathen  (i  Cor.  vii.  12-17 ;  2  Cor.  vi.  14-18) ;  the  marital 
relations  of  Christians  (i  Cor.  vii.  3-5)  ;  divorce  (i  Cor. 
vii.  39).  It  will  be  generally  admitted  that  the  decisions 
of  St.  Paul  were  on  the  whole  entirely  in  accordance  with 
the  dictates  of  Christian  common  sense.  As  to  divorce 
(i  Cor.  vii.  39)  St.  Paul  seems  to  forbid  remarriage  on  the 
part  of  the  wife,  apparently  even  if  divorced  by  her  husband: 
he  does  not  deal  with  the  parallel  case  of  the  husband,  nor 
explicitly  with  the  question  of  divorce  in  the  case  of 
adultery.  In  one  matter  he  defines  a  point  which  his 
Master  had  naturally  not  defined  ;  he  allows  a  husband 
or   wife    converted    from    heathenism,    whose    partner 


The  Apostolic  Teaching  231 

refuses  to  continue  the  co-habitation,  freedom  to  de- 
part, and  apparently  to  marry  again.  And  this  is  the 
principle  upon  which  the  Christian  Church  has  always 
acted,  so  far  as  the  dissolution  of  the  heathen  mar- 
riage is  recognized  by  the  civil  law  of  the  country 
(i  Cor.  vii.  15). 

(5)  The  organization  of  the  Christian  Churches  called 
for  the  enforcement  upon  Christians  of  a  number  of  new 
duties  —  duties  of  attendance  at  pubhc  worship  and 
perseverance  in  Christian  devotion,  pubhc  and  private 
(Col.  iii.  16)  ;  proper  behaviour  at  the  love-feasts  and 
other  religious  gatherings  (i  Cor.  xi.,  xii.,  xiv.)  ;  good 
government  on  the  part  of  rulers,  obedience  to  ecclesiastical 
authority  on  the  part  of  those  ruled  (i  Cor.  xvi.  15-18  ; 
I  Thess.  v.  12) ;  the  promotion  of  internal  harmony  and 
the  avoidance  of  quarrelling  or  Htigation  among  fellow- 
Christians  and  of  party  spirit  (Rom.  xii.  17-19 ;  i  Cor.  i. 
io~i2 ;  vi.  1-8 ;  2  Cor.  xii.  19-21 ;  Phil.  ii.  1-3 ;  Col.  iii.  12, 
13) ;  zealous  performance  of  various  functions  in  connexion 
with  the  spiritual  as  well  as  the  charitable  work  of  the 
community  (Rom.  xii. ;  i  Cor.  xii.,  xiv.) ;  a  combination  of 
severity  with  mercy  in  the  exercise  of  disciphne  by  rulers 
and  communities  (i  Cor.  v.  ;  2  Cor.  vii.,  xiii. ;  2  Thess. 
iii.  6)  ;  hospitahty  to  fellow-Christians  (Rom.  xii.  13)  ; 
the  duty  of  supporting  those  who  devote  themselves  to 
Apostohc  work,  though  St.  Paul  personally  dechned  to 
avail  himself  of  such  support  (i  Cor.  ix.).  The  exact 
degree  of  value — temporary  or  permanent — which  we 
ought  to  recognize  in  all  these  regulations  would  involve  a 
treatise  upon  the  Church,  its  functions,  and  its  organization. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  anyone  who  recognizes  the  absolute 
necessity  of  ecclesiastical  organization  for  the  carrying 
out  of  Christ's  work  and  the  diffusion  of  His  principles 
throughout  the  world  must  admit  the  necessity  of  some 


232  Conscience  and  Christ 

such  rules ;  and  few  will  be  disposed  to  deny  that  on  the 
whole  the  precepts  of  St.  Paul  and  the  other  ApostoUc 
writers  on  this  head  do  represent  a  thoroughly  legitimate 
application  to  the  circumstances  of  the  early  Christian 
communities  of  the  fimdamental  ideas  of  our  Lord's  own 
ethical  teaching.  The  obligation  to  obey  such  rules  is 
based  upon  the  principle  of  mutual  Love,  which  carries 
with  it  the  duty  of  co-operating  with  others,  of  sub- 
ordinating individual  interests  and  inclinations,  and  even 
to  some  extent  private  judgement  in  matters  of  imessential 
detail,  for  the  good  of  the  Christian  community  and  the 
extension  of  its  work  among  "  those  that  are  without." 
The  chief  point  on  which  exception  might  be  taken  to  St. 
Paul's  actual  ruhngs  is  his  treatment  of  the  position  of 
women  in  the  Church  Association  (i  Cor.  xiv.  34-36). 
This  is  a  point  on  which  the  Christian  world  is  still  divided  ; 
but  few  will  dispute  the  wisdom  for  St.  Paul  and  the  Church 
of  his  day  in  deferring  to  the  general  sentiment  of  their 
time. 

(6)  Another  department  of  duty  which  called  for  more 
expUcit  treatment  than  was  required  in  our  Lord's  own 
teaching  was  that  of  obedience  to  the  State.  This  is 
enforced  by  St.  Paul  and  by  the  author  of  i  Peter  in  a 
way  which  was  no  doubt  demanded  by  the  circumstances 
of  the  time,  however  unfortunate  the  precedent  they  have 
supplied  for  doctrines  of  "  divine  right  "  and  absolute 
non-resistance  in  later  ages  (Rom.  xiii.  1-7).  The  principle 
that  the  State,  according  to  the  true  idea  of  it — even  a 
non-Christian  State — is  a  minister  of  God  for  good  to  its 
subjects,  may  be  regarded  as  a  new  ethical  principle  of 
enduring  value  (cf.  i  Peter  ii.  13-17). 

(7)  Patient  endurance  of  suffering  is  one  of  the  duties 
which  the  circumstances  of  the  first  Christians  obviously 
called  upon  their  teachers  to  enforce.     It  is  frequently 


The  Apostolic  Teaching  233 

insisted  on  in  all  the  Epistles,  and  is  the  main  subject  of 
the  first  Epistle  ascribed  to  St.  Peter.  Since  effective 
resistance  to  the  State  was  for  the  first  Christians  wholly 
out  of  the  question,  and  would  have  been  absolutely 
fatal  to  the  progress  of  the  Christian  faith,  it  cannot  be 
said  that  there  is  undue  insistence  upon  the  idea  of  passive 
submission.  The  prominence  of  such  exhortations  in  the 
Epistles  has  no  doubt  sometimes  suggested  a  too  passive 
interpretation  of  the  Christian  ideal ;  but  this  tendency 
has  been  chiefly  theoretical  except  when  the  abuse  of 
these  passages  suited  the  purpose  of  a  pohtical  or  ecclesias- 
tical party. 

(8)  Another  kind  of  development  is  to  be  found  in  the 
application  of  general  principles  of  Christian  conduct  to 
the  various  special  relations  of  hfe.  St.  Paul  in  particular 
insists  on  the  mutual  obligations  of  husband  and  wife 
(Eph.  V.  22-33  ;  Col.  iii.  18, 19  ;  i  Peter  iii.  1-7),  of  parents 
and  children  (Eph.  vi.  1-4 ;  Col.  iii.  20,  21)  ;  of  master 
and  slave  (i  Cor.  vii.  21-24  ;  Eph.  vi.  5-9  ;  Col.  iii.  22-25  * 
I  Peter  ii.  18-20).  The  details  of  these  duties  are  conceived 
of  in  accordance  with  the  best  ideas  of  the  time  alike  among 
Jews  and  Gentiles ;  but  a  new  spirit  is  infused  into  them 
by  the  prominence  which  Christian  teaching  gave  to  Love 
and  mutual  goodwill  in  all  the  relations  of  life.  This  is 
especially  prominent  in  the  case  of  the  mutual  obligations 
of  slave  and  slave-master.  There  is  of  course  no  opposition 
to  the  institution  of  slavery  in  itself.  It  required  a  thousand 
or  eighteen  hundred  years  more  of  development  before 
anything  of  the  kind  became  possible.  But  the  principles 
laid  down  by  St.  Paul  contain  in  themselves,  if  duly  carried 
out,  the  condemnation  of  the  whole  institution.  Doubtless 
St.  Paul  never  contemplated  that  they  would  have  that 
effect ;  but,  if  he  had  done  so,  the  course  which  he  took 
would  still  have  been  regarded  by  wise  men  as  the  only 


234  Conscience  and  Christ 

one  immediately  practicable — to  lay  down  moral  principles 
and  leave  the  political  applications  to  the  future.  The  only 
point  of  immediate  application  on  which  a  modem  Christian 
would  be  likely  to  differ  from  him  would  be  in  his  advice 
to  the  slave  to  remain  a  slave  if  he  had  the  opportunity  of 
being  free  ;  but  it  is  not  certain  that  his  "  Use  it  rather  " 
{fiakkov  \fn](rai,  I  Cor.  vii.  2i)  does  not  mean  "  Avail 
yourselves  of  the  opportunity." 

So  far  we  may,  I  think,  recognize  the  ethical  teaching  of 
the  Epistles  as  a  legitimate  development  of  our  Lord's 
actual  teaching,  and  as  supplying  a  type  and  pattern  for 
the  kind  of  development  which  must  always  be  going  on 
if  the  Christian  spirit  is  to  be  apphed  to  the  needs  of  widely 
different  ages  and  countries,  and  if  what  is  true  and  noble 
in  other  ethical  ideals  and  systems  is  to  be  accepted  and 
brought  into  its  proper  relation  with  those  fundamental 
Christian  ideas.  But  it  would  be  too  much  to  say  that  the 
spirit  of  the  Apostohc  and  Sub-apostolic  age  was  altogether 
after  the  mind  of  Christ,  or  represents  in  every  respect  a 
model  for  our  own  imitation.  It  may  be  well  briefly  to 
notice  the  points  on  which  some  reservation  is  necessary : 

(i)  There  is  something  in  the  spirit  of  the  Apocalypse 
which  may  be  thought  Jewish  rather  than  Christian.  The 
book  is  probably  based  upon  an  old  Jewish  Apocalypse, 
or  rather  mziny  Apocalypses,  edited  by  a  Christian  hand 
or  hands ;  but  the  editing — whoever  was  responsible  for  it 
— is  hardly  sufficient  to  warrant  its  use  as  an  authority 
for  Christian  conduct.  It  exhibits  a  certain  ferocity 
towards  heathen  persecutors,  but  it  does  not  contain 
much  in  the  way  of  ethical  precept.  We  know  too  little 
of  the  errors  denounced  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Churches 
to  be  able  to  judge  how  far  they  were  merely  theological 
mistakes  or  how  far  they  involved  a  moral  laxity  which 


The  Apostotic  Teaching  235 

justified  strong  denunciation.    To  a  considerable  extent 
it  is  probable  that  this  last  was  the  case. 

(2)  The  expectation  of  the  Parousia  narrowed  the 
Christian  outlook  upon  life.  For  the  most  part  the 
ethical  deficiencies  which  it  brought  with  it  were  negative. 
Men  expecting  a  catastrophic  judgement  of  the  world 
in  a  few  years'  time  were  not  likely  to  attach  their  true 
value  to  Art,  Knowledge,  schemes  of  widely  expanded 
and  gradual  social  improvement  (such  a  hmitation,  by  the 
way,  is  almost  equally  characteristic  of  the  best  philo- 
sophic Ethics  of  the  time).  It  involved  almost  inevitably 
(though  not  perhaps  logically)  some  tendency  to  other- 
worldhness — though  the  extent  of  this  may  very  easily 
be  exaggerated.  The  temptations  which  it  brought  with 
it  to  idleness,  undue  religious  excitement,  neglect  of 
family  obligations  and  the  like  were  fully  appreciated 
and  corrected  by  the  Apostolic  leaders  themselves  (see 
especially  i  Thess.  iv.  11  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  6-15). 

(3)  There  are  few  traces  of  excessive  Asceticism  in  the 
Apostolic  or  Post-apostolic  ideals.  Extreme  asceticism, 
and  a  disposition  to  rely  upon  it,  was  a  characteristic  of 
the  heresies  with  which  they  were  engaged  in  combating. 
Dogmatic  prohibitions  or  scruples  about  particular  kinds 
of  food  or  drink  are  severely  condemned.  Still,  we  cannot 
quite  positively  say  that  even  St.  Paul  actually  adopted 
our  Lord's  attitude  towards  fasting  (see  above,  p.  160  sq.). 
If  we  may  rely  upon  Acts  (x.  30  ;  xiii.  3  ;  xiv.  23),  the 
practice  of  fasting  was  kept  up  in  the  earliest  Church. 
But  the  allusion  to  fasting  in  i  Corinthians  vii.  5  is  due 
to  a  transcriber  (rejected  in  R.V.)  ;  and  it  is  doubtful 
whether  in  2  Corinthians  vi.  5,  xi.  27,  St.  Paul  is  referring 
to  ecclesiastical  fasting  or  (as  seems  more  probable)  to 
privations  endured  in  the  course  of  Apostolic  journeys. 
I  Cor.  ix.  27  is  too  vague  to  be  appealed  to  in  this  con- 


236  Conscience  and  Christ 

nexion  ;  all  Christians  recognize  the  duty  of  self-control 
in  the  matter  of  bodily  appetites. 

(4)  St.  Paul's  ideahzation  of  the  married  relation, 
which  he  used  to  typify  the  relation  between  Christ  and 
His  Church,  began  that  spiritualization  of  the  marriage 
ideal  which  has  been  one  of  the  most  imdoubted  achieve- 
ments of  later  Christianity.  But  in  practice  he  does  not 
seem  himself  to  have  advanced  very  much  beyond  the 
average  Jewish  view  of  marriage.  He  looks  upon  it  too 
much  as  a  mere  preservative  against  worse  evils  (i  Cor. 
vii.).  All  through  his  treatment  of  the  subject,  especially 
in  his  condemnation  of  second  marriages,  there  is  a 
distinct  inclination  to  the  ascetic  disparagement  of 
Marriage,  though  his  strong  common  sense  and  ex- 
perience of  the  evils  arising  from  the  undue  exaltation 
of  ceUbacy  prevented  his  carrying  the  tendency  far.  His 
attitude  was  largely  no  doubt  due  to  the  expectation  of  an 
inunediate  Parousia.  The  emphatic  contradiction  of  St. 
Paul's  advice  in  i  Timothy  v.  14  ("  that  the  younger 
widows  marry ")  may  no  doubt  be  attributed  to  a 
waning  confidence  in  the  nearness  of  this  event,  and  to 
experience  of  the  evils  which  the  exaltation  of  virginity 
and  widowhood  had  brought  with  it. 

(5)  The  most  serious  deduction  from  what  has  been 
said  as  to  the  generally  Christian  temper  of  the  Apostohc 
Morality  is  to  be  found  in  the  attitude  which  the 
development  of  the  visible  Church  (considering  the 
intellectual  hmitations  of  its  leaders)  almost  necessarily 
involved  towards  heresy,  schism,  and  every  form  of 
rebellion  against  ecclesiastical  authority.  The  Christian 
Conscience  can  hardly  approve  **  the  Lord  reward  him 
according  to  his  works  "  (2  Tim.  iv.  14,  there  is  much 
MS.  authority  for  "  shall  reward ").  But  it  is  in 
the  Johannine  writings  that  the  tendency  towards  the 


The  Apostolic  Teaching  237 

identification  of  all  persons,  all  forms  of  life,  and  all 
forms  of  belief  outside  the  legitimate  Church  with  the 
"  world " — a  world  regarded  as  actively  hostile  to 
Christ  and  all  good — is  carried  furthest.  The  existence 
of  quite  unjustified  and  savage  persecution  from  out- 
side and  the  strong  disposition  of  the  early  heresies  to 
associate  themselves  with  moral  laxity  may  go  far  to 
excuse  this  temper  as  regards  heretics  within  (or  claiming 
to  be  within)  the  Christian  fold ;  while  the  moral  con- 
dition of  the  pagan  world  (especially  as  regards  sexual 
morahty)  fully  justified  the  conception  of  a  broad 
ethical  contrast  between  the  two  worlds.  Christians 
were  justified  in  regarding  with  horror  and  hostility  the 
dominant  temper  of  ordinary  pagan  hfe,  though  doubtless 
there  was  more  good  in  the  best  circles  of  the  pagan 
world  than  some  of  them  could  recognize.  But  it  is 
hardly  possible  to  deny  that  the  germs  are  to  be  found 
in  the  New  Testament  itself  of  that  tendency  to  attribute 
high  merit  to  orthodoxy  of  behef  and  of  that  intoler- 
ance towards  unbehevers  or  unorthodox  behevers  which 
constitute  such  an  appalling  set-off  to  the  enormous 
benefits  which  the  Christian  Church  has  conferred  upon 
the  world.  So  far  even  the  best  and  greatest  of  Apostles 
and  Apostolic  men  fell  below  the  spiritual  level  of  their 
Master.  Even  in  the  attitude  adopted  towards  actual  sin, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (vi.  6)  that 
no  repentance  for  wilful  post-baptismal  sin  was  possible 
must  be  regarded  as  a  falling  off  from  our  Lord's  own 
teaching  on  the  forgivingness  of  God.  Happily  that  atti- 
tude was  soon  corrected  by  the  charity  and  the  common 
sense  of  the  Church. 

I  have  rarely  used  the  Pastoral  Epistles  for  illustration  ; 
though  much  in  them  may  well  come  from  the  pen  of 


238  Conscience  and  Christ 

St.  Paul,  it  is  probable  that,  in  their  present  form,  they  rep- 
resent the  ideas  of  a  generation  later  than  the  Apostohc  age : 
but  there  is  in  them,  in  the  way  of  positive  precept,  little 
which  is  not  quite  in  the  spirit  of  St.  Paul.  They  consist 
for  the  most  part  in  the  appUcation  of  the  general  principles 
of  Christian  Morality  to  a  more  developed — but  still 
fairly  simple — ecclesiastical  organization. 

For  an  elaborate  examination  of  the  moral  ideal  and 
especially  the  internal  moral  condition  of  the  early  Christian 
communities  I  may  refer  to  the  excellent  work  of  Prof, 
von  Dobschiitz,  Christian  Life  in  the  Primitive  Church 
(Trans,  by  Rev.  G.  Bremner).  Though  the  Professor 
belongs  to  a  school  rather  disposed  to  deny  the  necessity 
or  vihie  of  "  development,"  the  book  affords  striking 
testimony  to  the  historical  fact  of  such  development  at 
least  within  the  ethical  region,  and  constitutes  on  the 
whole  a  vindication  of  the  form  which  it  assumed. 


LECTURE   VI 
CHRISTIAN  ETHICS  AND  OTHER  SYSTEMS 

I  HAVE  endeavoured  in  previous  lectures  to  es- 
tablish three  points  :  (i)  That  in  its  fundamental 
principles  the  ideal  of  life  presented  to  us  by  Christ 
Himself  still  commends  itself  to  our  moral  conscious- 
ness ;  (2)  that  these  principles  require  development, 
and  (3)  that  the  development  which  is  demanded  by  the 
Christian  consciousness  of  to-day  is  one  which  can  be 
recognized  as  a  true  and  legitimate  outgrowth  of  the 
Master's  own  teaching.  At  this  point  the  question 
may  be  raised,  *'  Granted  that  this  ethical  ideal  is  true, 
is  it  at  all  peculiar  to  Jesus  ?  Can  we  not  find  in  other 
ethical  systems  the  same  fundamental  principles,  and 
are  not  those  principles  equally  capable  of  such  a 
development  as  is  being  actually  given  to  them  in 
the  Christian  Church  of  to-day  ?  Is  there  any  reason 
why  at  the  present  day  we  should  regard  ourselves 
as  in  any  paramount  or  exclusive  sense  disciples  of 
Jesus  ? ''  These  are  the  questions  which  I  propose  to 
discuss  in  the  present  lecture. 

I  should  like  to  begin  by  saying  that  from  a  practical 
point  of  view — for  the  purposes  of  the  individual  re- 

239 


240  Conscience  and  Christ 

ligious  life — it  is  not  a  matter  of  primary  importance  to 
determine  how  far  the  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus  was 
original  when  it  was  first  given  to  the  world,  or  how 
far  other  teachers  may  or  may  not  have  taught  the 
same  principles  since  His  time.  If  those  principles  are 
true,  if  the  development  that  has  been,  or  at  all  events 
may  now  be,  given  to  them  wthin  the  limits  of  the 
Christian  Church  is  a  legitimate  development,  they 
will  be  none  the  less  true  because  the  same  truths  may 
have  been  taught  by  other  teachers  also.  That  remark 
holds  also  of  the  distinctively  religious  or  theological 
side  of  Christianity.  The  fact  that  the  same  truths  had 
been  revealed  to  others  through  other  teachers  would 
not  alter  the  truth  of  the  revelation  in  Christ.  To  admit 
that  might  no  doubt  involve  some  change  in  our  ideas 
about  the  Person  of  Jesus  Himself ;  but  so  long  as  we 
are  looking  upon  Him  simply  as  an  ethical  Teacher, 
the  fact  that  other  teachers  have  taught  the  same 
things,  will  not  supply  us  with  any  reason  for  ceasing 
to  regard  ourselves  as  disciples  of  Christ. 

We  ought  therefore  to  examine  the  originality  and 
distinctiveness  of  Christ's  teaching  with  a  perfectly 
open  mind.  How  far  then,  to  take  the  central  point  of 
His  teaching,  has  the  doctrine  of  imiversal  Brother- 
hood been  taught  by  others  besides  Christ  and  inde- 
pendently of  Him  ?  First,  I  will  say  something  as  to 
the  teaching  of  Moralists  outside  the  great  historical 
Religions.  I  have  already  endeavoured  to  show  how 
far  Aristotle  fell  below  the  teaching  of  Jesus — how  far 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     241 

in  many  respects  he  fell  below  the  moral  standard  of 
the  later  Judaism — the  standard  which  is  presupposed 
by  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself.  But  it  would  be 
quite  unfair  to  look  upon  Aristotle  as  representing 
the  highest  ethical  thought  of  the  ancient  world.  Some 
writers — notably  the  revered  Thomas  Hill  Green — 
have  at  times  encouraged  the  notion  that  such  was 
the  case.  They  have  written  as  though  the  Morality 
we  now  profess  was  substantially  the  Morality  of 
Aristotle  a  little  widened  and  expanded  by  Christianity, 
as  though  no  important  ethical  development  had 
intervened  between  Aristotle  and  Christianity.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  Aristotle  represents  not  the  highest 
ethical  standard  of  the  ancient  world,  but  in  some 
respects  one  of  the  lowest  among  highly  civilized 
Moralities.  His  is  the  least  modern,  the  least  universal- 
istic,  the  least  humane — the  most  intensely  aristo- 
cratic, particularistic,  and  intellectualistic — of  ancient 
Moralities.  It  is  the  Morality  of  the  little  slave-holding 
aristocratic  class  in  the  autonomous  City-state.  In  the 
very  next  generation,  when  the  destruction  of  the 
ancient  Polis  system  by  Aristotle^s  friend  and  master 
Alexander  the  Great  had  begun  to  do  its  work,  we 
find  a  higher  and  more  cosmopolitan  Morality.  You 
find  little  or  nothing  about  the  brotherhood  of  man  in 
Aristotle.  You  begin  to  find  it  in  the  writings  of 
Aristotle's  own  pupils — in  Theophrastus,  for  instance. 
There  had  been  a  little  more  of  it  in  Plato,  and  there 
was  much  more  of  it  in  the  later  Platonists,    But  it  is 


242  Conscience  and  Christ 

above  all  in  the  writers  of  the  Stoic  school  that  we 
encounter  the  closest  parallels  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
and  of  primitive  Christianity.  Is  there  anything  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus — I  am  confining  mjrself  now  to  His 
ethical  teaching — which  you  do  not  find  in  the  Stoics  ? 
I  think  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  are  to  be  found 
in  the  great  Stoic  writers.  The  essential  principle  that 
we  ought  to  treat  every  human  being  as  an  end  in 
himself  as  philosophers  say — that  we  ought  to  love  our 
neighbour  as  oiuselves  or  to  treat  him  as  a  brother 
as  Christian  Morality  more  simply  expresses  it — is 
fully  taught  by  such  writers  as  Zeno,  Seneca,  Epictetus, 
and  Marcus  Avurelius.  The  supreme  value  of  moral 
goodness — as  the  most  important  element  in  human 
good — is  as  fully  and  completely  expressed  by  them 
as  it  has  been  by  any  Christian  writer.  The  superiority 
of  spiritual  good  to  carnal  is  duly  emphasized,  nor 
can  it  be  said  that  there  is  any  over-estimation  of 
intellectual  activity — rather  perhaps  too  little  appre- 
ciation of  any  knowledge  or  culture  which  has  no 
direct  bearing  upon  individual  character  or  social 
welfare. 

Here  are  a  few  of  the  passages  in  Seneca  which 
afford  the  closest  approximation  to  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount.  "  We  will  enjoin  him  to  hold  out  his 
hand  to  the  shipwrecked,  to  point  out  the  way  to 
the  wanderer,  to  divide  his  bread  with  the  hungry,"* 

'  £p.  Mor.,  XCV.     Seneca  is  singing  the  praises  of  Friendship. 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     243 

"  You  must  live  for  another  if  you  would  live 
for  yourself/' 1  **  I  will  so  live  as  if  I  knew  that  I  was 
born  for  others." ^  There  is  no  fundamental  distinction 
between  the  slave  and  the  freeman.  "  They  are  slaves," 
you  urge/'nay,  they  are  men.  .  .  .  They  are  slaves,  nay, 
they  are  humble  friends.  They  are  slaves,  nay,  they  are 
fellow-slaves,  if  you  reflect  that  fortune  has  the  same 
power  over  both.  .  .  .  Let  some  of  them  dine  with  you, 
because  they  are  worthy — others  that  they  may  become 
worthy.  ...  He  is  a  slave,  you  say,  yet  perchance  he  is 
free  in  spirit. "^  *'  I  will  be  agreeable  to  friends,  gentle 
and  yielding  to  enemies."^  *'We  will  not  cease  to 
serve  the  common  good,  to  help  individuals,  to  give 
aid  even  to  enemies."^  '*  If  you  imitate  the  gods, 
confer  benefits  even  on  the  unthankful :  for  the  Sun 
arises  even  on  the  wicked,  and  the  seas  are  open 
to  pirates."^  *' One  ought  so  to  give  that  another 
may  receive.  It  is  not  giving  or  receiving  to  transfer 
to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left."'  "Expect  from 
others  what  you  have  done  to  another."^  '*  Let  us 
so  give  as  we  would  wish  to  receive."^  The  intrinsic  ^ 
value  of  goodness,  the  importance  of  pure  inten- 
tion, the  inwardness  of  true  virtue,  are  taught 
in  language  which,  both  on  its  strictly  ethical  and 
on  its  reUgious  side,  is  closely  parallel   to  sayings 

1  Ep.  Mor.,  XLVIII.  »  De  vit.  beat.,  20. 

»  Ep.  Mor.,  XLVII.  *  De  vit.  beat..  20. 

»  De  Otio,  28.  •  De  Benef.,  iv.  26. 

'  Ih.,  V.  8.  «  Ep.  Mor.,  XCIV  (in  a  quotation). 

»  De  Benef. ^  U,  i, 


244  Conscience  and  Christ 

of  Jesus.  "  So  live  with  men,  as  if  God  saw  you  ; 
so  speak  with  God,  as  if  men  heard  you."^  **  Cast 
out  whatsoever  things  rend  thy  heart ;  nay,  if 
they  could  not  be  extracted  otherwise,  then  thou 
shouldest  have  plucked  out  thy  heart  itself  with 
them."*  "Apply  thyself  rather  to  true  riches.  ...  It 
is  shameful  to  depend  for  a  happy  life  on  gold  and 
silver."*  There  are  a  number  of  other  parallels  (col- 
lected in  the  well-kno>Mi  Essay  of  Bishop  Lightfoot),* 
both  to  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  and  of  St.  Paul  so 
close  that,  if  it  were  not  quite  impossible  in  the  case 
of  our  Lord  and  highly  improbable  in  the  case  of 
St.  Paul,  an  incautious  critic  would  be  certain  to 
pronounce  that  there  must  have  been  borrowing  on 
one  side  or  the  other. 

Much  the  same  spirit  pervades  the  writings  of 
M.  Aurelius  and  Epictetus.  '*  Love  the  human  race. 
Follow  God,"  says  M.  AureHus.*  "  It  is  the  character- 
btic  of  man  to  love  even  those  who  do  wrong."* 
•*  WTiatever  action  of  thine  has  no  bearing,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  upon  the  social  end,  tears  thy 
life  asunder  and  destroys  its  unity  and  involves 
sedition""  {(rraa-itoStj^).  "Anger  is  not  manly;  but 
meekness  and  gentleness,  as  they  are  more  human,  so 
they  are  more  masculine."*  M.  Aurelius  is  particularly 
full  of  exhortations  to  forgiveness  and  gentleness  towards 

>  Ep.  Mor..  X.  •  76..  LI.  »  lb.,  CX. 

*  Appended  to  his  edition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 

»  Meditations,  VII,  31.  •  lb.,  VII,  22. 

'  lb..  IX.  23.  •  76.,  XI,  18.    a.  the  whole  chapter. 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     245 

those  who  injure  or  revile  one :  and  he  was  a  man  who 
had  opportunities  of  deaUng  with  detractors  as  Nero 
and  Domitian  dealt  with  them. 

Exhortation  to  universal  Benevolence  is  a  little  less 
prominent  in  Epictetus,  but  he  is  full  of  the  thought 
that  man  is  a  citizen  of  the  world/  and  the  religious 
aspect  of  Morality  is  more  marked  in  him  than  in  the 
other  two  writers.  His  conception  of  God  is  a  distinctly 
ethical  conception,  if  he  more  often  speaks  of  His 
essential  rationality  than  of  His  love.^ 

As  far  as  they  go,  such  maxims  as  I  have  quoted 
must  be  pronounced  wholly  in  accordance  with  the 
spirit  of  Christ.  But,  as  I  have  so  often  found  it 
necessary  to  observe,  the  real  concrete  meaning  of  an 
ethical  formula  can  only  be  discovered  from  its  con- 
text— the  context  in  which  it  stands  in  the  whole 
teaching  and  ideal  of  the  teacher.  It  would  be  possible 
to  collect  from  the  great  Stoic  writers  a  considerable 
list  of  maxims  quite  inconsistent  with  the  Christian 

^  "  Thou  art  a  citizen  of  the  world  and  a  part  of  it,  not  one  of 
its  subjects  but  of  its  rulers.  .  .  .  The  whole  is  more  important 
than  the  part,  and  the  city  than  the  individual  citizen  "  (Arrian, 
Discourses  of  Epictetus,  ii.  lo). 

"  God  is  "Intellect,  Knowledge,  Right  Reason"  (I.e.,  ii.  8). 
Man  is  "  a  spark  of  God  ;  thou  hast  a  piece  of  Him  in  thee  "  (16.), 
"  Philosophers  say  that  we  ought  first  of  all  to  learn  that  God  exists 
and  takes  thought  for  the  Universe,  and  that  we  cannot  escape  His 
notice  not  only  in  what  we  do  but  even  in  the  secret  thoughts  of  our 
hearts."  "  He  who  would  please  the  Gods  must  endeavour  to 
become  like  them  so  far  as  he  can.  If  the  Divinity  is  faithful,  he 
too  must  be  faithful :  if  free,  he  too  must  be  free  ;  if  beneficent 
(eiepycTiKdv),  he  too  must  be  beneficent ;  if  generous,  he  too  must 
be  generous.  And  so  in  everything  else  he  must  act  and  speak 
\  as  befits  an  imitator  of  God  "  [ib.,  ii.  14). 


246  Conscience  and  Christ 

^principles  which  they  elsewhere  profess.  At  one  time, 
for  instance,  Seneca  urges  forgiveness  ;  at  other  times 
he  practically  adopts  the  maxim,  '*  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
friend,  and  hate  thine  enemy."  He  has  not  fully  imder- 
stood  the  principle  which  Plato  might  have  taught  him, 
that,  when  punishment  should  be  inflicted,  it  is  really 
a  kindness.  It  is  only  consistent  with  this  cruder  and 
lower  side  of  Stoic  morahty  that,  though  personal  in- 
sults are  often  to  be  ignored,  forgiveness  of  moral 
wrong-doing  )6  actually  condemned.  *  As  to  their  teach- 
ing on  the  sexual  side  of  Morality,  I  will  only  say 
that  there  is  some  difficulty  in  understanding  what  it 
was,  and  that  it  seems  to  have  fallen  far  short  of  the 
Christian  standard.* 

Moreover,  if  we  penetrate  to  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  Stoic  school,  we  shall  find  in  them  three 
elements  which  were  really  inconsistent  with  their  own 
teaching  about  imiversal  Benevolence,  (a)  In  the 
first  place  the  very  exaggeration  of  their  doctrine  that 
moral  goodness  was  the  sole  good  of  Hiunanity,  the 

*  l>e  Qem.,  ii.  3-7.  So  to  be  indulgent  to  the  tinner  would  imply 
that  the  man  had  not  sinned  voluntarily  (m^  ««f*  ai-rbv  ijpLaprriKdrat). 
Stobxus,  Floril.,  46.  50.  llie  paradoxical  doctrine  that  there  are 
no  degrees  oi  virtue,  and  that  all  sins  are  equal,  is  in  accordance 
with  this  line  of  thought.  The  parable  of  the  talents  and  the 
saying  about  many  stripes  and  few  stripes  oocretpond  much  better 
to  the  moral  instincts  of  unsophisticated  Homanity. 

*  The  idea  of  hving  according  to  Natnre  teems  tometiaMt  to 
have  been  understood  in  a  coarse  and  immoral  teate.  It  it  tug- 
gested  that  in  an  ideal  state  there  would  be  a  oommunity  of  wives, 
and  the  duty  of  recognizing  the  accepted  restrictions  is  based  solely 
on  the  authority  oi  the  State.  See  Zeller's  Stoics,  EpicurMUS  and 
Sceptics,  E.T.,  1870,  p.  290  sq.,  and  the  passages  there  quoted. 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     247 

only  thing  necessary  to  happiness,  miUtated  against 
Benevolence.  If  pleasure  is  no  good  for  myself,  it  is 
no  good  for  others,  and  I  need  not  trouble  myself 
about  other  people's  pleasures  :  if  pain  is  no  evil,  why 
should  I  seek  to  mitigate  it  ?  The  Stoic  idea  of 
Apathy  required  the  suppression  of  the  altruistic  as 
much  as  of  the  egoistic  passions.  And  this  conclusion 
was  explicitly  drawn  by  the  Stoics  themselves.  They 
often  (though  happily  not  with  complete  consistency) 
despised  and  condemned  pity,  and  their  exhortations 
to  forgiveness  were  too  often  tinged  with  contempt, 
*'  There  is  no  reason  why  thou  shouldest  be  angry; 
pardon  them,  they  are  all  mad/'^  (6)  Secondly,  this 
condemnation  of  pity  was  only  a  part  of  a  general 
condemnation  of  feeling.  They  deliberately  attempted 
to  suppress  and  exterminate  all  emotion.  They  held, 
no  doubt,  that  the  wise  man  will  often  do  in  obedience 
to  Reason  the  things  which  less  wise  men  do  from 
emotion.  He  will  relieve  suffering,  but  he  feels  no 
pity  for  the  sufferer.  He  will  punish  the  wrong-doer, 
but  righteous  indignation  must  be  suppressed  no  less 
than  the  spirit  of  personal  revenge.  The  Stoics  were  ^ 
right,  no  doubt,  in  thinking  that  mere  affection  for 
individuals  not  guided  or  controlled  by  a  Reason  which 
attempts  to  be  impartial  or  universal  is  not  Virtue  at 
its  highest.  But  it  was  scarcely  possible  that  thinkers 
who  condemned  the  emotion  which  is  and  practically 
always  must  be  the  chief  inspiring  source  of  Benevo- 

^  De  Beneficiis,  v.  17. 


248  Conscience  and  Christ 

lence,  should  give  its  right  place  in  Ethics  to  Love. 
Nobody  ever  served  men  more  heartily  and  con- 
scientiously than  M.  Aurelius.  Perhaps  he  loved  them 
too :  but  in  his  attitude  towards  the  vast  majority 
there  was  a  touch  of  contempt.  It  is  impossible  to  dis- 
cover in  him  that  recognition  of  imdeveloped  possi- 
bilities of  goodness  in  the  pubUcan  and  the  sinner 
which  was  so  conspicuous  a  feature  in  the  character  of 
Jesus.  Virtue  was  only  possible  to  the  wise  man.  And 
wise  men,  it  was  admitted,  must  always  be  few  even 
among  the  intellectual.  Wisdom,  and  therefore  the 
highest  virtue,  was  not  possible  for  the  uneducated  or 
^  the  stupid.  And  this  is  closely  connected  with  a  third 
Vadical  defect  in  Stoic  Morality,  (e)  The  starting-point 
of  the  Stoic  MoraUty  was  the  desire  to  find  peace  or 
unruffled  tranquilUty  for  the  individual  soul.  The 
fundamental  tenet  of  the  school  was  that  nothing  was 
really  good  or  evil  which  was  not  dependent  solely  on 
the  will.  Virtue  was  recommended  because  it  was 
the  only  good  which  depended  entirely  upon  the  man 
himself.  Thus  the  Stoic  was  too  much  disposed  to 
commend  Virtue  not  because  it  was  good,  but  because 
it  was  his  good.  Such  an  ideal  produced  a  self-suffi- 
ciency and  self-absorption  which  did  not  conduce  to — 
perhaps  were  hardly  compatible  with — the  highest 
unselfishness.  And  it  certainly  tended  towards  that 
excessive  sense  of  personal  dignity  which  we  com- 
monly call  pride.  Hence  the  encouragement  to  suicide, 
even  in  cases  where  a  man's  opportunities  of  social 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     249 

service  were  by  no  means  at  an  end.  It  was  in  order 
to  be  independent  of  the  accidents  of  human  Ufe,  to 
be  sure  of  attaining  the  true  good  for  himself,  that  the 
Stoic  school  originally  recommended  men  to  think  of 
nothing  but  Virtue. 

I  do  not,  indeed,  hold,  as  has  been  strangely  sug- 
gested in  some  quarters,  that  whereas  all  the  other 
virtues  could  be  discovered  by  the  natural  capacity  of 
the  moral  consciousness,  a  special  and  strictly  super- 
natural revelation  was  required  to  teach  the  value  of 
Humility.  There  is  something  singularly  grotesque 
in  the  notion  of  a  man  being  humble  because,  though 
he  could  not  see  any  essential  beauty  or  excellence  in 
it,  he  had  received  a  supernatural  communication  of 
the  fact  that  he  ought  to  be  humble.  Rather  should 
we  say  that  Humility  at  bottom  (in  the  form  in  which 
it  really  is  a  virtue)  is  only  a  particular  form  or  mani- 
festation of  the  love  which  cares  for  others,  for  their 
rights  and  their  virtues  and  their  achievements,  as 
much  as  for  self.  The  want  of  humility  in  the  Stoic 
ideal  is  just  one  of  the  little  indications  that,  in  spite 
of  all  the  formal  correctness  of  its  maxims,  the  beauty 
of  unselfishness  was  not  yet  fully  appreciated.  There 
was  an  ambiguity  about  their  fundamental  principle 
of  living  agreeably  to  nature.  In  so  far  as  this  meant 
living  in  accordance  with  the  true  nature  of  man,  it 
was  a  sound  and  Christian  maxim.  ^  But  its  original 
meaning  was  perhaps  simply  to  live  in  accordance 

1  Cf.  Butler,  Sermon  I. 


250  Conscience  and  Christ 

with  the  actual  nature  of  the  physical  Universe  ;  and 
it  never  altogether  lost  this  side  of  its  significance.  So 
understood,  it  amounted  to  httle  more  than  a  pru- 
dential counsel  to  avoid  setting  one  s  heart  upon 
things  which  fortune  might  take  away.  There  was, 
indeed,  the  root  of  all  true  MoraUty  in  the  idea 
that  moral  conduct  was  to  act  on  universal  principles, 
and  this  impUed  that  a  man  should  regard  himself  as 
a  citizen  of  the  world  and  promote  its  good.  But  the 
school  never  quite  succeeded  in  escaping  from  what 
seems  to  have  been  the  original  thought  of  its  founder 
—  that  virtue  was  the  right  means  to  that  un- 
ruffled tranquiUity  of  the  whole  life  which  the  Epi- 
curians  less  wisely  sought  in  pleasure.  The  Stoic 
Apathy  (axadcio)  was  not  so  very  far  in  principle 
from  the  untrouUed  calm  (arapa^la)  of  the  Epicurean, 
though  much  nobler  in  practice.  The  later  develop- 
ment of  the  school  was  on  the  whole  away  from  this 
original  Egoism.  The  altruistic,  universalistic  side  of 
Stoicism  steadily  gained  upon  the  individualistic,  and 
reached  its  final  achievement  in  the  teaching  and  the 
life  of  M.  AureUus  Antoninus.^ 

*  The  opinioiift  of  Ze&o  himself,  as  distinct  from  those  of  hit 
followers,  are  not  known  with  much  certainty,  but  on  the  whole  the 
account  of  the  growth  of  Stoicism  in  Zeller  and  the  authorities 
which  he  cites  support  this  view  of  its  development.  The  origin  of 
Stoicism  was  a  pessimistic  turning  away  from  politics  and  social 
life  in  its  old  narrow,  civic  form.  The  individual,  unable  to  hnd 
true  happiness  in  active  political  life,  was  thrown  back  upon  him 
self.  It  was  only  gradually  that  the  growth  of  the  Roman  Empire , 
and  the  widening  of  ethical  ideals  which  accompanied  it.  suggested 
tliat  the  service  of  Humanity  supplied  a  nobler  sphere  for  practical 
activity  than  the  ancient  Polls. 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     251 

And  yet,  apart  from  all  dogmatic  considerations,  few 
people  feel  that  M.  Aurelius  is  the  equal  of  Jesus. 
The  defects  of  Stoic  Morality  on  which  I  have  already 
dwelt  are  discernible  even  in  him — in  his  teaching 
and  in  his  character.  It  was  not  altogether  through 
mere  accident  or  mere  misunderstanding  that  the  best 
of  pagans  became  the  persecutor  of  the  community  in 
which  his  own  ideal  of  life  was  more  nearly  realized 
than  it  was  among  any  other  section  of  his  subjects. 
Under  no  possible  circumstances  can  we  imagine  Jesus 
becoming  the  persecutor  of  a  group  of  men  who, 
whatever  their  tenets,  worshipped  that  common 
Father  of  whom  M.  AureUus  vaguely  spoke,  and  made 
it  their  chief  aim  to  love  one  another.  When  Christians 
took  to  persecution,  they  had  largely  ceased  to  be  fol- 
lowers of  Jesus,  and  one  great  source  of  the  corrup- 
tion lay  in  an  infusion  of  that  very  imperial  spirit  of 
ancient  Rome  which,  with  all  his  cosmopolitanism, 
revealed  itself  in  M.  AureUus*  persecution  of  the 
Christians. 

And  then  I  would  once  again  call  your  attention  to 
the  principle  that,  when  we  are  treating  of  an  ethical 
system  not  as  formal  Philosophy  but  as  practical 
teaching  intended  to  appeal  to  the  emotions  and 
inspire  the  will,  the  form  is  as  important  as  the  sub- 
stance. You  can  find,  as  we  have  seen,  beautiful 
expressions  of  the  duty  of  love  and  mercy  and  forgive- 
ness— some  of  them  so  closely  parallel  to  passages  of 
the  New  Testament  as  to  produce  a  fallacious  appear- 


252  Conscience  and  Christ 

ance  of  imitation.  And  yet,  taken  as  a  whole,  they  do 
not  appeal  to  us  as  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the 
parables  of  the  good  Samaritan  and  the  Prodigal  Son. 
They  do  not  make  so  deep  an  appeal  to  the  educated — 
still  less  to  the  uneducated.  Stoicism  was  no  Gospel 
for  the  mass  of  men.  And  therefore  it  was  no  mere 
historical  accident  that,  in  so  far  as  the  Stoic  Religion 
a|p)  the  Stoic  Morality  were  identical  with  the  Chris- 
tian, it  was  not  through  the  Stoic  school,  but  through 
the  Christian  Church,  that  they  came  to  be  the  accepted 
Morality  of  the  modem  Western  world. 

Even  if  we  could  get  over  the  shortcomings  and 
inconsistencies  of  Stoicism,  if  we  could  identify  its 
theological  and  ethical  teaching  with  that  of  Chris- 
tianity to  a  greater  extent  than  we  can  reasonaWy  do, 
there  would  still  remain  this  fundamental  difference 
between  M.  Aurelius  and  Christ.  Christ  founded  a 
Religion  and  a  Church :  the  Stoics  founded  neither. 
This  is  a  point  of  immense  importance  wlien  we  are 
considering  the  personal  greatness  and  the  historical 
position  of  Christ :  it  is  simply  decisive  when  we  are 
discussing  the  reasons  for  transferring  to  M.  Aurelius 
or  some  other  Stoic  hero  anything  Uke  the  allegiance 
that  Christians  actually  own  to  Christ.  There  is, 
indeed,  much  truth  in  Mark  Pattison's  view  that, 
during  the  three  centuries  or  so  before  Constantine, 
Philosophy  had  been  working  out  a  creed  which  on  its 
ethical  side,  and  to  a  ^^eat  extent  even  on  the  theological 
side,  was  identical  with  the  creed  at  which  the  Christian 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     253 

Church  had  arrived  by  quite  another  route — through 
the  adoption  of  the  Jewish  ideal,  universaUzed  and 
completed  by  Christ  and  developed  by  His  disciples.^ 
But  the  fact  remains  that  it  was  Christianity  and  not 
the  Stoic  or  any  other  Philosophy  which  converted  the 
world  to  Monotheism  and  the  Ethics  of  universal 
Brotherhood.  And,  further,  when  Christianity  came 
into  contact  with  Graeco-Roman  culture,  the  ^o 
parallel  currents  of  spiritual  development  began 'to 
fuse.  The  teaching  of  the  Christian  Fathers  absorbed 
much  of  what  was  best  in  the  teaching  of  Philosophy — 
especially  of  this  Stoic  Philosophy  with  which  we  are 
immediately  dealing.  There  is  no  need  whatever  to 
minimize  the  close  resemblance  between  the  Stoic 
ideal  at  its  best  and  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  of 
those  who  drank  most  deeply  of  His  spirit.  The  early 
Apologists  were  right  in  appealing  to  the  correspond- 
ence between  the  best  teaching  of  Philosophy  and  that 
of  the  Christian  Religion  as  so  much  evidence  in  favour 
of  Christianity,  when  taken  in  connexion  with  the 
enormously  greater  success  of  Christianity  in  moulding 
men*s  lives  into  conformity  with  that  teaching.  To 
anyone  who  seriously  proposed  to  revive  the  Stoicism 
or  the  Eclecticism  of  the  later  Roman  world  as  a 
working  rule  of  modern  life  I  should  say,  '*  You  need 
not  trouble  to  do  that.  The  Christian  Church  has 
already  absorbed  what  Stoicism  had  to  teach.     The 

1  See  his  Sermons,  which  are  almost  all  devoted  to  the  working 
out  of  tliis  idea. 


254  Conscience  and  Christ 

best  way  of  practising  all  that  is  best  in  Stoicism — all 
in  it  that  any  modem  Conscience  is  really  likely  to 
accept — is  to  be  a  Christian." 

I  do  not,  of  course,  deny  that  at  some  periods  the 
actual  working  ideal  of  Christendom  fell  in  some 
respects  far  below  Stoicism,  or  that  there  were 
unchristlike  elements  in  it  which  a  renewed  study  of 
Stoicism  might  help  us  to  get  rid  of.  All  that  is 
said  of  "  Christianity  "  here  must  be  taken  to  mean 
"  Christianity  in  so  far  as  it  has  remained  faithful  to 
the  spirit  of  its  Founder." 

I  have  dwelt  thus  elaborately  on  the  differences 
between  Stoicism  and  Christianity  because,  if  one 
wishes  to  establish  the  supremacy  of  the  Christian 
Ethic,  it  is  fair  to  compare  it  with  the  highest  non- 
Christian  ethical  system  that  one  knot's.  Outside 
i^  Christianity  I  know  of  no  higher  Morality  than  that 
of  the  Stoics.  But  to  those  who  feel  the  need  for  a 
ReUgion  and  a  Church  or  reUgious  community,  Stoicism 
could  not  possibly  be  an  alternative  to  Christianity, 
even  if  the  parallelism  between  their  teaching  were 
closer  than  it  is.  In  the  rest  of  this  lecture  I  shall 
speak  only  of  systems  or  ideals  which  have  embodied 
v_^hemselves  in  still  living  historical  Religions. 

There  are  at  the  present  day  many  people  who  would 
heartily  admit  the  difference  between  an  ethical 
philosophy  and  a  religion,  and  who  would  freely 
recognize  that  Religion  is  possible  on  a  large  scale  only 
in  and  through  some  actual  historical  religion,  but  who 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     255 

seem  to  think  that  it  makes  Uttle  or  no  difference 
which,  at  least  among  the  higher  reUgions,  a  man 
belongs  to.  They  will,  it  may  be,  consider  themselves 
Christians  because  they  happen  to  be  bom  in  a  Christian 
country,  but  they  do  not  think  the  difference  between 
Christianity  and  other  religions — they  often  forget  to 
mention  precisely  which  religions — sufficient  to  justify 
them  in  supporting  a  mission  whose  object  it  is  to 
invite  members  of  other  religions  to  become  Christians. 
Such  persons  talk  about  a  *'  religious  experience  '' 
which  they  assume  to  be  the  same  in  all  the  higher 
religions.  The  Theology  of  the  various  religions  is  for 
them  merely  the  outward  historical  embodiment  of 
this  religious  experience,  and  is  an  unessential  and 
separable  element  of  such  religions.  As  a  matter  of 
history  and  psychological  fact,  I  believe  this  position 
to  be  profoundly  mistaken.  I  do  not  mean,  of  course, 
that  there  are  no  common  elements  in  the  higher 
historical  religions,  or  that  there  is  any  great  religion 
in  which  there  is  not  a  measure  of  truth.  The  best 
missionaries  of  the  present  day  fully  and  gladly 
recognize  that  the  Spirit  of  God  has  spoken  to  men 
through  many  religions  besides  the  Jewish  and  the 
Christian.  But  two  things  I  regard  as  certain— 
(i)  That  every  religion,  whatever  else  it  is,  always 
includes  a  theory  of  the  Universe,  and  incompatible 
theories  of  the  Universe  cannot  all  be  true.  It  is  as 
absurd  to  talk  about  all  the  religions  being  equally 
true  as  to  talk  about  all  philosophies,  or  all  systems  of 


256  Conscience  and  Christ 

Astronomy,  being  equally  true  ;  (2)  that  the  character 
of  the  religious  experience  which  is  possible  to  any 
individual  is  largely  detemnined  by  the  theory  of  the 
Universe  at  which  he  has  already  and  independently 
arrived.  To  get  the  religious  experience  characteristic 
of  a  rehgion,  you  must  believe  in  its  theory  of  the 
Universe.  The  experience  of  communion  with  or  love 
of  a  personal  God  is  only  possible  if  one  believes  in 
a  God  who  is  capable  of  loving  and  being  loved.  The 
experience  which  Hindoo  mystics  attempt  to  describe, 
the  experience  of  union  with  an  All  which  is  essentially 
non-personal  and  non-moral  (whatever  may  be  its 
value),  is  only  possible  to  one  who  already  beUeves  in 
such  a  non-personal  and  non-moral  Absolute,  and 
who  can  share  the  genuine  Hindoo  contempt  for 
Morality  as  a  purely  human  and  transitory  affair. 
And  the  two  experiences,  so  far  as  can  be  judged 
from  the  expressions  of  them  in  language  and  litera- 
ture, are  profoundly  different  and  incompatible.  I 
must  not  enlarge  further  upon  the  difference  between 
the  great  historical  reUgions  on  their  theological  side. 
My  subject  confines  me  to  the  ethical  differences.  And 
here,  by  way  of  focussing  the  problem  with  which  we 
are  concerned,  I  will  allude  to  a  letter  which  appeared 
during  one  of  those  correspondences  on  religious  sub- 
jects in  the  newspapers  in  which  the  most  prominent 
part  is  usually  taken  on  both  sides  by  the  now  large 
class  of  half-educated  persons  who  believe  themselves 
to  know  all  about  everything.     The  gentleman  in 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     257 

question  informed  the  world  that  after  a  comprehen- 
sive survey  of  all  the  religions  of  mankind  he  had 
made  a  great  discovery.  He  had  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  there  were  two  elements  in  every  religion 
— a  theological  element  which  varied  but  was  unim- 
portant, and  an  ethical  element  which  was  important 
but  was  always  the  same.  Is  this  really  the  fact  ? 
Could  anyone  who  has  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that 
the  ethical  teaching  of  Christianity,  as  we  have  under- 
stood it,  is  true  reasonably  transfer  his  allegiance  to  any 
other  Religion  on  the  assumption  that  its  Ethics  were 
the  same,  even  supposing  he  were  right  in  imagining 
that  the  theological  differences  were  unimportant  ? 

Now  in  the  first  place  we  may,  I  think,  put  aside 
for  practical  purposes  all  the  lower  religions.  Roughly 
and  broadly  speaking,  the  higher  religions  are  dis- 
tinguished from  the  lower  just  by  the  fact  that  they 
are,  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term,  ethical  religions. 
That  does  not  mean  that  the  lower  religions  have  in 
them  no  ethical  element.  There  has  always  been  a 
very  close  connexion  between  Religion  and  Morality : 
but  the  nature  of  this  connexion  is  variable.  The 
primitive  religions  were  primarily  systems  of  rites 
and  ceremonies  by  which  it  was  thought  possible  to 
procure  the  favour  of  the  gods  :  and  the  favour  of  the 
gods  was  not  supposed  to  depend  wholly  or  mainly 
upon  the  moral  conduct  of  their  worshippers.^    Some 

^  It  may  be  said  that  there  was  always  this  much  that  was 
ethical  even  in  the  lowest  religions — that  they  always  prescribed 
the  doing  of  what  was  beneficial  to  the  tribe ;   and  attempts  have 
S 


258  Conscience  and  Christ 

gods,  no  doubt,  did  punish  some  kinds  of  moral  offence  : 
but  the  gods  were  not  all  of  them  thought  of  as  ideally 
moral  beings — some  of  them  were  thought  of  as 
grossly  immoral  and  as  deHghting  in  certain  kinds  of 
immorality.  Unless  a  religion  at  least  professes  to 
identify  the  will  of  the  supernatural  being  or  beings 
whom  it  worships  with  the  morally  good,  we  need  not 
seriously  discuss  its  claims  to  be  considered  on  ethical 
grounds  an  optional  alternative  to  Christianity.  And 
this  consideration  at  once  limits  the  rehgions  which  it 
is  necessary  to  consider  to  a  much  smaller  number  than 
might  be  supposed  from  the  airy  talk  which  we  often 
hear  about  the  substantial  identity  of  all  religions. 
Is  there  then  among  the  few  higher  rehgions  of  the 
world  any  one  which  teaches  substantially  the  same 
Ethics  as  Christianity  ? 

I  need  not  say  much  more  than  has  already  been 
said  about  Judaism.  Judaism,  as  we  have  seen, 
before  the  coming  of  Christ  never  quite  rose  to  the 
Christian  ideal  of  universal  Brotherhood.  Undoubtedly 
there  are  enUghtened  Jews  of  the  present  day  who 
heartily  accept  that  supreme  ethical  truth ;  but  they 
have  certainly  not  arrived  at   it  without  direct  or 

been  made  to  draw  a  sharp  line  between  Religion  and  Magic  on 
this  basis,  practices  which  were  supposed  to  benefit  the  indi- 
vidual only  being  treated  as  belonging  to  Magic,  and  not  to  Religion. 
For  some  purposes  this  may  be  a  convenient  distinction,  but  the 
distliictioii  cannot  be  made  very  sharply.  Even  the  early  Jewish 
pcoplist  was  much  concerned  with  the  recovery  of  lost  property. 
and  yet  it  would  be  absurd  to  treat  Samuel  as  only  a  magician  and 
as  having  nothing  to  do  with  the  rebgion  oi  Israel. 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     259 

indirect  help  from  Christianity,  and  they  can  only 
consistently  teach  it  by  repudiating  (as  of  course  is  done 
by  Jewish  teachers  who  have  accepted  the  critical 
position  as  to  the  Old  Testament)  much  of  the  official 
teaching  of  their  religion.^  I  am  not  now  speaking 
of  possible  reforms  of  the  Jewish  or  other  historical 
religions,  but  of  the  religions  in  their  historical,  tra- 
ditional, and  official  forms.  Taking  Judaism  in  that 
sense,  the  Ethics  of  Judaism  must  be  pronounced  (to 
say  the  least  of  it)  very  defective  by  anyone  who 
has  accepted  the  Christian  doctrine  that  men  of  all  races 
are  equal  in  the  sight  of  God  and  equally  neighbours 
to  one  another,  and  who  denies  that  the  performance 
of  rites  and  ceremonies  such  as  those  prescribed  by  the 
Jewish  Law  can  be  matters  of  ethical  obUgation. 

Of  Mohammedanism  it  may  still  more  unequivocally 
be  said  that  it  is  founded  upon  a  doctrine  of  inequality. 
It  is,  indeed,  universalistic  inasmuch  as  it  recognizes 
no  distinctions  of  race,  and  has  abolished  such  dis- 
tinctions in  practice  more  completely  than  is  un 
fortunately  the  case  with  large  numbers  of  professing 
Christians.  But  it  does  not  recognize  the  duty  of 
brotherhood  towards  men  of  all  creeds.  The  Koran 
requires  idolaters  to  be  slain,  and  the  Mussulman  to 
be  treated  as  intrinsically  the  superior  of  Jew  or  of 

^  No  doubt  this  was  already  done  to  some  extent  in  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Hellenistic  Judaism  of  the  Dispersion,  and  possibly  in  the 
teaching  of  some  of  the  Rabbis,  as  regards  the  duty  of  Gentiles ;  -but 
I  do  not  know  that  any  Jewish  teacher  actually  put  the  righteous 
*'  worshippers  of  Gk)d  "  spiritually  on  a  level  with  the  observers |[of 
the  Law. 


26o  Conscience  and  Christ 

Christian.  That  doctrine  of  Intolerance  which  was 
only  introduced  into  Christianity  by  the  malign  in- 
fluence of  St.  Augustine,  is  included  in  the  original 
and  fundamental  title  deeds  of  Mohammedanism.  That 
religion  recognizes  a  limited  polygamy  and  an  unlimited 
concubinage.  It  proclaims  the  essential  and  enormous 
inferiority  of  women.  It  avowedly  bases  moraUty 
upon  the  arbitrary  will  of  God.  And  the  plenary 
inspiration  which  the  Koran  claims  for  itself  creates 
a  serious  and  probably  insurmountable  obstacle  to  any 
development  of  the  Religion  which  shall  practically 
emancipate  it  from  these  limitations.  It  is  incon- 
ceivable that  any  man  who  really  believes  in  the 
essential  principles  of  Christian  morality  should  regard 
it  as  a  matter  of  indifference  to  a  people  or  to  an 
individual  whether  they  accept  the  morality  of  the 
New  Testament  or  that  of  the  Koran.  Expressions 
of  sentimental  sympathy  with  Mohammedanism 
generally  come  from  people  who  do  not  seriously 
profess  to  accept  the  most  characteristic  elements  of 
Christian  MoraUty.  Anti-religious  writers  have,  for 
instance,  sometimes  represented  Mohammedanism  as 
the  least  objectionable  of  all  religions  precisely  on 
accovmt  of  its  indulgence  to  human  frailty  in  the 
matter  of  sexual  relations  :^   while  those  who  look  at 

'  See.  for  instance,  Lanessan.  La  Morals  des  Religions.  As  a 
specimen  of  the  gross  ignorance  exhibited  by  this  ostensibly 
scientific  work,  I  may  mention  that  the  author  treats  St.  Paul  as 
the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  without  a  word  of  apology 
(p.  381). 


christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     261 

Religion  chiefly  from  a  political  point  of  view  often 
regard  Mohammedan  missions  with  more  favour  than 
Christian  just  because  they  avowedly  treat  Moham- 
medanism as  an  inferior  religion  suitable  for  inferior 
races,  and  one  useful  to  their  rulers  on  account  of  the 
support  which  it  affords  to  arbitrary  and  anti- 
democratic systems  of  government. 

Far  more  might  be  said  in  favour  of  an  attempt 
to  represent  the  ancient  Zoroastrianism — now  repre- 
sented by  Parseeism — as  a  religion  which  a  Christian 
might  accept.  Its  original  Dualism  is  beUeved  to  have 
passed  into  a  practical  Monotheism  at  an  early  date  : 
and  at  all  events  modern  educated  Parsees  are  Mono- 
theists.  And  their  Monotheism  is  of  an  essentially 
ethical  caste.  But  in  the  Ethics  of  the  Zend-Avesta 
ceremonial  transgressions  are  regarded  as  far  more 
grievous  than  moral.  ^    The  greater  part  of  the  Vendi- 

^  *'  Thereupon  came  Angra  Mainya,  who  is  all  death,  and  he 
counter-created  by  his  witchcraft  a  sin  for  which  there  is  no  atone- 
ment, the  burying  of  the  dead."  Zend-Avesta,  Vendidad,  Fargand, 
i,  13.    Trans,  by  Darmesteter  (Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  Vol.  IV). 

"  O  Maker  of  the  material  world,  thou  Holy  One  !  If  a  man 
shall  bury  in  the  earth  either  the  corpse  of  a  dog  or  the  corpse  of 
a  man,  and  if  he  shall  not  disinter  it  within  half  a  year,  what  is  the 
penalty  that  he  shall  pay  ?  Ahura  Mazda  answered  :  '  Five  hundred 
stripes  with  the  Aspahe-astra,  five  hundred  stripes  with  the  Sraosho- 
karana  '  "  (I.e.,  F.,  iii,  36).  But  he  may  inflict  a  wound  which  is 
healed  in  three  days  for  fifteen  stripes  (I.e.,  iv,  26),  or  if  he  hurts 
a  man  "  sorely,"  the  penalty  is  thirty  (I.e.,  30).  If  he  smite  him 
"  so  that  he  gives  up  the  ghost,"  the  penalty  is  only  ninety  stripes 
(I.e.,  40).  On  the  other  hand,  the  law  of  Mazda  (i.e.  acceptance  of  it) 
"  takes  away  from  him  who  confesses  it  the  bonds  of  his  sin  ;  it 
takes  away  (the  sin  of)  breach  of  trust ;  it  takes  away  (the  sin  of) 
murdering  one  of  the  faithful,"  etc.  (I.e.,  iii,  41).  But  this  is  ap- 
parently only  in  the  case  of  one  who  has  not  previously  professed 


262  Conscience  and  Christ 

dad — the  most  ancient  portion  of  the  Zend-Avesta — 
is  taken  up  with  the  mode  of  avoiding  ceremonial 
pollutions  and  warding  off  the  influence  of  evil  spirits, 
many  of  its  rites  being  of  a  rather  disgusting  character. 
Like  the  Koran,  it  recognizes  a  fundamental  distinc- 
tion between  a  man's  duty  towards  fellow-believers 
and  his  duty  towards  others.*  Its  ethical  precepts 
never  rise  above  the  level  of  the  Pentateuch  :  it 
never,  I  should  say,  comes  up  to  the  level  of  Deuter- 
onomy. Doubtless  many  modem  Parsees  neglect 
many  of  its  almost  intolerable  restrictions ;  they  may 
read  into  its  exhortations  to  goodness  and  purity 
an  Ethic  which  is  largely  identical  with  that  of  Chris- 
tianity.    But  it  is  impossible  to  represent  that  Par- 


the  law  ol  Masda,  a&d  who  "  conleMet  it  and  ratolvw  never  to 
commit  again  such  forbidden  deeds  **  (iii.  40). 

"  He  ^fHio  has  riches  is  iar  above  him  who  has  none  "  (I.C.,  iv, 
47).  And  "  he  who  fills  himself  with  meat  is  filled  with  the  good 
spirit  much  more  than  he  who  does  not  do  so  "  (I.e.,  iv.  48). 

"  If  a  man  shall  throw  on  the  ground  the  whole  body  of  a  dead 
dog.  or  of  a  dead  man,  and  if  grease  or  marrow  flow  from  it  on  to  the 
ground,  what  penalty  shall  he  pay  ?  Ahnra  Mazda  answered  :  '  A 
thousand  stripes  with  the  Aspah6-astra.  a  thoosand  stripes  with  the 
Sraosh6-karana  '  "  (I.e.,  vi.  24,  23). 

The  moral  teaching  of  tlie  Zend-Avesta  contains  many  fine 
sayings  about  Benevolence.  Humility,  and  Chastity ;  but  it  nowhere 
lays  down  the  principle  of  Universal  Benevolence  as  the  law  of  life. 
Its  teaching  is  not  i^-ithout  elevation  but  it  is  vague  :  and  the  form 
in  which  it  is  conveyed  can  nowhere  be  compared  whether  in  literary 
beauty  or  in  practical  impressiveness  with  the  noblest  passages  of 
the  Old  Testament — ^to  say  nothing  of  the  New. 

^  "  If  a  worshipper  of  Mazda  wants  to  practise  the  art  of  healing, 
on  whom  shall  he  prove  his  skill  ?  On  worshippers  of  Bfazda  or  on 
worshippers  of  the  Da^vas  ?  Ahura  Bftasda  answered :  '  On 
worshippers  of  the  Daftvas  shall  he  first  prove  himself/  "  etc.  (I.e..  F., 
vii.  3^.  37)- 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     263 

seeism,  taken  in  its  traditional  and  official  form, 
teaches  an  Ethic  which  would  make  Christian  Missions 
a  superfluity — even  if  the  matter  is  to  be  decided  on 
ethical  grounds  alone. 

Turning  to  the  indigenous  religions  of  India,  it  will 
not  be  necessary  to  say  much  of  orthodox  Hindooism, 
Its  system  of  caste  is  absolutely  opposed  to  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  Christian  Ethics.  A  religion  which 
forbids  an  out-caste  to  come  within  so  many  paces  of  a 
Brahmin,  which  denies  that  the  Brahmin  has  any 
duties  to  the  Sudra,  and  which,  to  speak  generally, 
interprets  the  neighbour  to  whom  duties  are  owed  as 
the  member  of  one's  own  caste  or  (for  some  purposes) 
of  a  caste  superior  to  one's  own,  cannot  be  said  to  teach 
the  Christian  doctrine  of  Brotherhood.  When  Indian 
civil  servants  defend  such  a  system,  as  they  some- 
times do,  they  only  show  how  httle  they  have  really 
grasped  the  principle  of  human  brotherhood  which  (if 
Christians)  they  profess  with  their  lips  ;  and  which 
if  they  do  not  make  any  such  professions,  they  would 
theoretically  perhaps  admit  to  be  the  teaching  of 
enUghtened  Philosophy.^  All  that  is  enlightened  and 
progressive  in  Hindoo  thought  is  already  revolting 
against  the  system,  however  much  social  tradition 
may  still  secure  the  observance  in  practice  of  caste 
rules.    It  is  not  really  of  Hindooism  as  it  is,  but  only  of 

*  Of  course  if  all  that  they  urge  is  that  the  destruction  of  the 
system  would  be  bad,  unless  its  place  was  taken  by  a  higher  religion , 
they  would  have  much  to  say  for  themselves. 


264  Conscience  and  Christ 

some  actual  or  possible  reformation  of  it,  that  the 
defender  of  what  we  call  Equi-religionism  can  reason- 
ably be  supposed  to  be  thinking  when  he  suggests 
that,  though  Christianity  may  be  a  suitable  rehgion 
for  Europeans,  there  is  no  reason  for  the  Oriental  to 
abandon  his  ancient  faith. 

Among  the  attempts  at  a  reform  of  Hindooism,  the 
most  ancient  and  the  most  important  is,  of  course,  the 
religion  known  as  Buddhism.  There  we  do,  indeed, 
encounter  a  religion  which  is,  in  a  sense,  on  the  same 
level  as  Christianity.  It  is  absolutely  universalistic. 
It  has  repudiated  caste  and  all  exclusive  priestly  pre- 
tensions. It  is  highly  ethical,  and  its  Ethics  are  of  an 
elevated  and  exacting  order.  It  rests  on  a  philosophy 
which  is  at  all  events  highly  metaphysical  and  highly 
intellectual.  In  its  earher  and  purer  forms  it  commits 
its  adherents  to  no  belief  that  is  obviously  impossible 
to  highly  educated  Westerners.  Rites  and  ceremonies 
are  completely  subordinated  to  a  purely  ethical  end. 
Even  in  its  lowest  and  most  degraded  form  it  has 
hardly  sunk  lower  than  Christianity  at  its  worst. 
It  is  sufficiently  free  from  stereotyped  and  authorita- 
tive standards  of  doctrine  to  admit  much  liberty  of 
thought,  and  much  development  both  of  doctrine  and 
of  practice.  In  some  of  its  sects  there  actually  has 
been  much  development ;  and  it  is  capable  of  more 
development  in  a  direction  which  increases  the  resem- 
blance of  both  its  Ethics  and  its  Theology  to  Chris- 
tianity.    It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  here  we  have 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     265 

the  one  ancient  historical  reUgion  of  the  East  that 
could  conceivably  be  regarded  by  the  civiHzed  Euro- 
pean as  a  possible  alternative  to  Christianity  for 
himself.  It  is  the  one  religion  which  a  few  educated 
and  intelligent  Europeans  have  formally  joined,^ 
and  which  powerfully  attracts  the  sympathy  of  many 
who  have  not  done  so.  But  are  its  Theology  and  its 
Ethics  the  same  as  those  of  Christianity  ?  Most 
assuredly  not.  Of  its  Theology  it  is  enough  to  say 
that  in  its  original  and  most  philosophical  form  it  is 
strictly  atheistic  :  in  popular  forms  of  it  its  atheistic 
Founder  has  been  deified.  ^  And  this  is  certainly  not 
the  same  Theology  as  that  of  Christianity.  But  once 
more  I  must  confine  myself  to  the  ethical  side  of  the 
Religion.  Now  here,  so  long  as  we  think  only  of 
practical  precepts  which  Buddhism  sets  before  the 
average  man,  there  is  a  very  close  resemblance  between 
its  teaching  and  that  of  Christianity  at  its  best.  It 
does  teach  universal  Benevolence,  Humanity  not 
merely  towards  men  but  towards  animals,  Chastity, 
Humility  ;  and  it  cannot  fairly  be  said  that  it  teaches 
anything  inconsistent  with  these  virtues  as  regards  the 
duties  of  the  ordinary  man  living  in  the  world.  The 
Christian  may  very  well  see  in  these  teachings  an  out- 
pouring of  the  Spirit  of  God  second  only  to  that  which 
he  recognizes  in  the  highest  Judaism  and  the  Chris- 

*  The  Englishmen  who  have  become  Mohammedans  may  fairly 
be  regarded  as  "  cranks." 

*  Of  course  not  to  the  exclusion  of  other  "  Buddhas,"  or  incar- 
nations of  Deity. 


266  Conscience  and  Christ 

tianity  in  which  it  culminated.  But,  when  we  turn 
from  the  precepts  for  outward  conduct  to  its  inner- 
most ethical  temper,  and  in  particular  when  we  turn 
from  the  ideal  which  it  sets  before  the  average  man  to 
the  ideal  of  perfection  which  it  holds  up  to  its  monks 
and  its  saints,  then,  amid  much  which  attracts  us, 
we  cannot  but  recognize  that  there  is  also  much  which 
is  absolutely  contradictory  to  the  Christianity  of 
Jesus.  The  charity  preached  by  Jesus  was  a  dis- 
interested desire  for  the  good  of  others :  the  Asceticism 
which  He  approved  (if  it  is  to  be  called  Asceticism)  was 
self-denial  for  the  sake  of  others — for  the  sake  of  bring- 
ing others  into  the  Kingdom  and  procuring  for  them 
health  of  body  or  health  of  soul.  To  the  Buddhist,  we 
are  told,  self-denial  is  prescribed  for  its  own  sake  :  the 
others  whom  he  benefits  are  treated  not  as  ends-in- 
themselves,  but  as  a  means  to  his  own  good.  The 
supreme  ideal  is  not  Love,  but  Self-renunciation. 
And  the  rationale  of  that  self-renunciation  is  that  all 
personal  existence,  and  all  the  desire  which  springs 
from  personal  existence,  are  bad.^    The  object  of  hfe 

^  Cf .  the  following  p> wages  from  Buddhist  Scriptures  : 

"  By  passing  quite  beyond  the  mere  consciousness  of  the  in&nity 
of  reason,  he.  thinking  '  nothing  at  all  exists.'  reaches  (mentally) 
and  remains  in  the  state  of  mind  to  which  nothing  at  all  is  specially 
present — this  is  the  sixth  stage  of  dehverance." 

"  By  passing  quite  beyond  all  idea  of  nothingness  he  reaches 
(mentally)  and  remains  in  the  state  ci  mind  to  which  neither  ideas 
nor  the  al)6ence  of  ideas  arc  specially  present — this  is  the  seventh 
stage  of  deliverance." 

"  By  passing  quite  beyond  the  state  of  '  neither  ideas  nor  the 
absence  of  ideas  '  he  reaches  (mentally)  and  remains  in  the  state 
of  mind  in  which  both  sensations  and  ideas  have  ceased  to 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     267 

is  to  escape  from  life — to  escape  from  desire,  to  escape 
from  personality,  perhaps  (according  to  some  inter- 
pretations of  Nirvana)  to  escape  from  consciousness 
itself.  Nobody,  it  must  be  remembered,  can  be  a 
true  Buddhist  but  the  monk  or  the  nun :  the  life 
of  the  layman  is  a  mere  concession  to  human  weak- 
ness. Salvation  can  never  be  attained  by  a  layman 
till  his  soul  has  been  reincarnated  in  a  monk.  And 
the  ideal  of  the  monks — ^though  in  practice,  like  their 
Western  equivalents,  they  have  not  been  so  socially 
useless  as  might  be  supposed  from  their  ideal — is  in 
the  main  renunciation  of  all  ordinary  human  duties 
and  human  enjoyments,  a  Ufe  of  soli<tary  meditation 
and  absorption  in  the  Absolute.  An&  even  in  laymen 
the  most  necessary  duties  of  good  citizenship  are  at 
best  tolerated.  It  is  strictly  inconsistent  with  Buddhist 
principles  to  use  force  even  in  the  most  necessary 
administration  of  Justice.  War  is  practised,  but  the 
Buddhist  admits  that,  in  however  just  and  necessary 
a  cause,  it  is  not  strictly  lawful.^  The  Jew  or  the 
Christian  will  justify  war  as  a  necessary  means  to 
securing  the  best  things  of  life  and  the  just  distribution 

this  is  the  eighth  stage  of  deUverance  "  (Book  of  the  Great  Decease, 
iii,  39-41,  Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  Vol.  XI). 

"  Hinder  not  yourselves,  Ananda,  by  honouring  the  remains 
of  the  Tath§,gata.  Be  zealous,  I  beseech  you,  Ananda,  in  your  own 
behalf  1  Devote  yourselves  to  your  own  good  !  Be  earnest,  be 
zealous,  be  intent  on  your  own  good  !  "  (I.e.,  chap,  v,  24). 

"  You  have  done  well,  Ananda  !  Be  earnest  in  effort,  and  you 
too  shall  soon  be  free  from  the  great  evils — from  sensuality,  from 
individuality,  from  delusion,  and  from  ignorance  "  (I.e.,  chap,  v,  35). 

^  Cf.  Fielding  Hall,  The  Soul  of  a  People  (chap.  vi). 


26d  Conscience  and  Chrisl 

of  such  things :  to  the  genuine  Buddhist  nothing  in 
Ufe  can  be  worth  fighting  for,  or  even  struggUng  or 
laboriously  working  for.  Can  anything  be  more 
wholly  opposed  to  the  ideals  whether  of  the  best 
modem  Christians  who  labour  for  the  improvement 
of  human  Ufe  or  of  the  average  Western  man  who, 
whatever  his  professed  rehgious  or  non-rehgious 
beUef,  is  profoundly  convinced  that  business,  poUtics 
culture,  and  ordinary  social  Ufe  are  worthy  spheres  of 
human  activity  ?  It  is  possible,  of  course,  to  suggest 
that  the  Buddhist  ideal  is  true  and  the  Christian  false : 
it  is  simply  trifling  with  the  subject  to  maintain  that 
they  are  the  same.* 

It  may,  no  doubt,  be  suggested  that  Christianity 
has  in  the  past  at  times  approximated  to  the  Buddhist 
ideal.  No  doubt  it  has.  Asceticism  has  sometimes 
been  far  more  extravagant  among  Christians  than 
among  the  foUowers  of  Gautama,  who  had  a  very 
Umited  belief  in  the  spiritual  value  of  positive  as 
distinct  from  the  negative  kind  of  Asceticism.  The 
ideal  of  Christian  Monasticism,  especially  in  its  earUer 
form,  b  open  to  precisely  the  same  objections  as  the 
ideal  of  Buddhism.  Those  Christians  who  are  caUed 
in  the  narrow  and  more  technical  sense  of  the  term 
mystics  have  often  approximated  to  the  Buddhist 
type  of  reUgious  thought  and  feeling,  though  some  of 

^  It  is  true  that  the  selfishness  of  the  Buddhist  ideal  is  practi- 
cally (if  iUogically)  redeemed  by  its  insistence  upon  the  duty  of 
inducing  others  to  make  similar  self-renunciation :  the  monk  must 
make  other  monks.  But  this  only  emphasizes  the  anti-social 
character  of  the  ideal. 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     269 

them  have  at  the  same  time  practised  laborious  works 
of  Charity  which  to  the  strict  Buddhist  would  seem 
but  so  many  falUngs  off  from  the  true  ideal.  And  even 
in  the  ecstasies  of  the  Christian  mystic,  the  "  love  " 
of  which  their  utterances  are  so  full  has  never  quite 
forgotten  that  it  is  a  desire  for  the  good  of  other 
persons,  and  has  seldom  become  merely  a  name  for 
the  destruction  of  all  desire  in  order  to  attain  that 
true  good  of  self  which  is  the  extinction  of  self.  As  to 
certain  modem  and  quite  unmonastic  mystics  who 
profess  much  sympathy  with  quasi-Buddhist  modes 
of  thought  and  expression,  I  will  only  say  that  their 
ideal  appears  to  be  consistent  with  an  attitude  towards 
the  pleasures,  enjoyments,  and  ambitions  of  this  life 
which  does  not  perceptibly  differ  from  that  of  non- 
mystical  Christians,  and  which  would  seem  to  the 
really  Buddhist  monk  as  inconsistent  with  the  life  of 
the  true  philosopher  as  it  is  with  that  of  the  true 
religionist.  But  in  so  far  as  the  Western  man  is  ever 
sincere  in  his  professions  of  sympathy  with  the 
thoroughgoing  Buddhist  ideal,  I  freely  admit  that  I 
do  not  see  why  he  should  ask  a  Buddhist  to  become 
a  Christian.  I  will  go  further,  and  say  that  the  diffi- 
culty is  to  justify  his  remaining  a  Christian  and  not 
becoming  a  professed  Buddhist.  The  attitude  that  is 
really  intolerable  is  first  to  complain  of  Christianity 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  too  *'  world-renouncing,  *'  and 
then  to  patronize  a  religion  which  is  on  any  view 
vastly     more     world-renouncing,     world-contemning, 


270  Conscience  and  Christ 

progress-hating,  other-worldly  than  Christianity  has 
ever  been  at  any  period  of  its  history — certainly 
more  so  than  it  is  now.  In  one  respect  the  most 
ascetic  and  world-renouncing  form  of  Christianity  has 
always  been  poles  apart  from  Buddhism.  World- 
renouncing  Christianity — except  in  mystics  who  have 
fairly  passed  outside  the  bounds  of  Christian  orthodoxy 
— has  always  aspired  after  a  better  life  hereafter  :  to 
the  Buddhist  hope  of  a  future  life  is  one  of  the  deadly 
sins.^ 

It  is  true  that  just  as  Chnsiiamty  has  sometimes 
been  tinged  N\ith  Buddhist  ideas,  so  it  is  possible  to  find 
in  some  phases  of  Buddhism  a  much  closer  approxima- 
tion to  the  best  Christian  ideas.  Among  the  practical 
Japanese,  for  instance,  the  speculative,  world-renounc- 
ing, anti-social  side  of  Buddhism  has  never  had  any 
profound  influence.  One  of  its  sects  has  become  much 
more  theistic  than  the  religion  of  Gautama.*  The 
language  used  about  salvation  by  belief  in  Amida 
closely  resembles  the  Christian  language  about  salva- 
tion through  Christ.*  Its  Eschatology,  through 
association  with  the  Shinto  ancestor-worship,  has 
become   more   like   the   Christian   hope   of   personal 

'  "  The  virtues  which  .  .  .  are  untarnished  by  the  desire  o£ 
future  life  "— MahA-Parinibb4na-Sutta,  ii.  9  {Sacred  Books  of  the 
East,  Vol.  XI.). 

•  The  Jodo  Shin  Shu.     See  two  very  interesting  articles  by 
Dr.  Estlin  Carpenter  on  "  Religion  in  the  Far  East  "  in  Ths  Que 
(Vol.  I.  N08.  3  and  4,  1910). 

•  See  Tks  Prais$$  of  Amida,  Seven  Buddhist  Sermons,  translated 
from  the  Japanese  of  Tada  Kanai.  By  Arthur  Lloyd.  Tokyo, 
published  by  the  KyObunkwan  :  Yokohama,  Kelly  and  Walsh,  1907. 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     271 

Immortality.  And  the  Ethics  of  the  sect  have  under- 
gone corresponding  developments.  The  ascetic  world- 
renunciation  tends  to  disappear,  and  to  be  trans- 
formed into  a  high  standard  of  social  duty  such  as 
would  be  recognized  by  the  modern  Christian  as  the 
true  interpretation  of  Christian  Love.  This  develop- 
ment has  been,  up  to  a  certain  point,  quite  independent 
of  Christianity  :  but  in  recent  times  the  Buddhist 
ideal  has  shown  a  strong  tendency  to  assimilate 
avowedly  and  consciously  the  ideal  of  Christ.  Buddhist 
priests  sometimes  boast  that  they  are  teaching  Chris- 
tian Morality. 

In  the  same  way,  in  India  and  elsewhere,  attempts 
are  being  made  to  regenerate  the  old  historical  Re- 
ligions in  a  way  which  is  obviously  due,  sometimes  to 
an  unavowed,  sometimes  to  an  avowed,  influence  of 
the  Christian  ideal.  The  best  known  of  such  attempts 
are  the  movements  or  rather  religious  communities 
known  as  the  Arya  Somaj  and  the  Brahmo  Somaj.  In 
the  Brahmo  Somaj  the  influence  of  Christianity  is 
particularly  conspicuous.  Its  Theism,  its  hope  of 
Immortality,  and  its  Ethics  are  often  quite  of  the 
Christian  type.  The  language  in  which  Keshub 
Chunder  Sen,  the  founder  of  its  most  liberal  branch,^ 

^  The  original  sect  was  founded  by  Rajah  Rammshun  Roy  in 
1844.  There  is  another  branch  of  the  Brahmo  Somaj  founded  by 
Debendranath  Tagore  in  1844;  Keshub  Chunder  Sen  in  1866 
founded  the  "  Brahmo  Somaj  of  India,"  which  became  so  famous 
that  its  connexion  with  the  older  movement  which,  though  in- 
fluenced by  Christian  thought,  professes  closer  affinity  with  a 
regenerated  Hindooism,  was  often  ignored. 


272  Conscience  and  Christ 

speaks  of  Christ  is  very  much  what  would  be 
used  by  many  Unitarian  Christians.  Somewhat 
similar  tendencies  may  be  detected  within  the  old 
Persian  religion  now  known  as  Parseeism.  As  to 
Judaism  it  is  difficult  to  say  when  it  did  not  begin  to 
be  influenced  by  Christianity.  And  certainly  there 
are  many  modem  Jews  whose  Ethic  is  practically  at 
all  points  Christian.  Some  modem  Jewsh  Refonners 
advocate  the  reading  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
regard  Jesus  as  at  least  one  of  the  prophets — if  not 
as  the  prophet  by  whom  at  last  the  etemally  true 
element  of  Judaism  has  been  fully  brought  out  and 
separated  from  the  element  in  Judaism  which  was 
particularistic,  unethical,  transitory.*  If  they  still 
advocate  a  modified  observance  of  the  ceremonial 
law,  it  is  only  as  a  particular  form  of  universalistic 
Theism,  suitable  to  the  needs  of  a  particular  race 
with  a  special  history  but  by  no  means  of  any  strictly 
ethical  or  universal  obligation. 

It  is  only,  as  it  seems  to  me,  as  regards  these  modem 
attempts  to  reform  ancient  rehgions  under  the  avowed 
or  unavowed  influence  of  Christianity*  that  the 
question  can  seriously  arise  whether  they  can  be 
regarded  as  altemative  forms  of  Religion  which  could 

»  Sec,  for  instance,  the  Liberal  Judaism  and  other  writings  of 
Mr.  Claude  Montefiore. 

•  The  argument  will  not  be  much  affected  if  it  is  contended  that 
the  approximation  to  Christianity  has  been  independent  of  even 
indirect  Christian  influence-— very  difficult  as  such  a  contention 
appears  to  me  to  be. 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     273 

possibly  appear  so  far  satisfactory  to  one  who  shares 
the  Christian  ideal  that  he  would  feel  himself  pre- 
cluded from  asking  their  adherents  to  leave  their  old 
religions  and  to  join  the  Christian  Church.  As  regards 
members  of  such  bodies,  we  ought,  I  think,  seriously  to 
face  the  question  what  ought  to  be  the  attitude  of  the 
Christian  to  them.  Ought  we  to  abandon  direct 
proselytizing  propaganda  in  countries  where  such 
religious  communities  exist,  and  to  direct  our  mis- 
sionaries' energies  rather  towards  helping  and  assisting 
such  efforts  at  reform  from  within  ?  In  answer  to 
this  question  I  would  say  three  things  : 

(i)  We  ought  to  recognize  that  this  Christianizing 
of  other  bodies  is  distinctly  one  of  the  ways  in  which 
the  Kingdoms  of  the  world  are  already  becoming,  and 
are  likely  in  the  future  still  more  to  become,  the 
Kingdom  of  our  God  and  of  His  Christ.  In  so  far  as 
these  reforms  mean  the  practical  acceptance  of  that 
conception  of  God  and  that  ideal  of  life  which  Jesus 
taught,  Christians  must  rejoice,  and  thank  God  that 
such  a  work  is  going  on.  Already  the  best  Missionaries 
recognize  that  the  indirect  results  of  missionary  effort 
are  as  important — perhaps  more  important — than  the 
direct  results  as  regards  the  more  civilized  races  and 
the  more  educated  classes  in  them.  These  results  by 
themselves  constitute  a  sufficient  and  splendid  justifi- 
cation of  those  missionary  efforts  in  the  past  towards 
which  some  of  our  enlightened  Equi-religionists  adopt 
such  a  superciUous  and  depreciatory  attitude.     We 


274  Conscience  and  Christ 

must  not  let  the  mere  non-use  of  the  word  Christianity 
bhnd  us  to  the  presence  of  the  spiritual  reality  when 
it  is  actually  there.  The  attitude  of  Christians  towards 
such  religious  movements  ought  to  be  in  the  highest 
degree  friendly  and  sympathetic.  It  does  not  follow 
that  we  can  remain  wholly  satisfied  with  their  posi- 
tion ;  or  that,  even  if  we  could,  avowedly  Christian 
missions  ought  to  cease.  Even  if  the  Brahmo  Somaj 
were  a  completely  satisfactory  equivalent  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  forces  of  all  the  Christians  and  all  the 
reformed  Hindooisms  between  them  would  assuredly 
be  no  more  than  adequate  to  the  task  of  fighting 
against  the  idolatries  and  superstitions  and  the  caste- 
moralities  of  unreformed  Hindooism.  We  may  freely 
admit  that  direct  proselytizing  effort  had  better  be 
concentrated  rather  upon  those  who  are  in  the  most 
spiritual  need  of  it  than  upon  those  who  have  adopted 
some  quasi-Christian  form  of  behef  under  another 
name.  And  yet  it  is  probable  that  the  more  complete 
Christianization  of  such  movements  will  be  best  carried 
on  by  the  continuance  of  independent  missionary 
effort  directed  towards  the  making  of  avowed  members 
of  the  Christian  Church.  The  people  of  India  are  quite 
capable  of  appreciating  the  idea  that  the  same  God 
can  be  worshipped  under  many  forms  :  they  are  not 
likely  to  be  much  impressed  by  a  Religion  which  does 
not  believe  in  itself  sufficiently  to  proselytize. 

(2)  I  think  it  should  very  distinctly  be  reaUzed  that 
the  truth  and  value  of  the  Christian  Ethic  does  not 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     275 

depend  upon  the  fact  of  its  having  been  taught  by 
Jesus  Himself — still  less  upon  its  having  been  taught 
by  Jesus  exclusively.  If  it  could  be  shown  that  the 
sayings  which  we  have  been  in  the  habit  of  regarding 
as  most  characteristic  of  the  historical  Jesus  were  in 
reality  none  of  His,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  there 
never  was  an  historical  Jesus  or  that  we  know  nothing 
to  speak  of  about  His  teaching,  the  truth  and  the 
value  of  the  teaching  attributed  to  our  Lord  in  the 
Gospels  would  not  be  one  whit  diminished.  Still  less 
could  it  be  affected  by  the  fact  that  others  have  taught 
the  same  ideal.  And  what  is  true  of  the  ethical  teaching 
is  true  equally  of  the  religious  teaching  of  Jesus — if 
we  put  aside  those  few  genuine  sayings  which  speak  of 
His  own  divine  Sonship  or  Messiahship.  If  that  is  so, 
it  is  a  possibiUty  that  a  religious  community  which  did 
not  formally  adopt  the  name  of  Christian  might  come 
to  teach  the  Ethics  and  the  Theism  of  the  Christian 
Church.  Whether  any  actual  religious  community  has 
reached  this  position  is  a  question  of  fact  upon 
which  I  will  not  venture  to  pronounce  any  positive 
opinion. 

(3)  There  remains  the  question,  ''If  an  individual 
or  a  community  has  reached  this  position,  what  would 
be  still  lacking  to  them  ?  "  That  is  a  large  question, 
to  answer  which  fully  would  involve  almost  a  treatise 
on  dogmatic  Theology.  But,  so  far  as  the  answer  can 
be  given  in  a  single  word,  I  believe  the  answer  to  be  this. 
If  it  could  be  shown  that  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  was  un- 


276  Conscience  and  Christ 

historical,  what  we  should  lose  would  be  the  personality 
0/  Jesus.  The  Christian  ideal  might  be  recognized 
where  the  words  of  Jesus  are  not  known  or  reverenced, 
or  the  words  might  be  accepted  where  the  historic 
Jesus  Mras  not  believed  in  :  but  they  would  not  come 
home  and  appeal  to  us  as  powerfully  as  they  do  when 
we  think  of  them  as  the  expression  of  an  actual  Person 
who  once  lived  in  this  world  of  ours,  who  once  enjoyed 
and  still  enjoys  that  loving  and  intimate  communion 
with  the  heavenly  Father  of  which  the  Gospel  pages 
tell  us.  The  influence  of  an  ethical  ideal  embodied  in 
a  Person  is  greater — I  do  not  think  it  easy  to  say  how 
much  greater — than  the  influence  of  an  ideal  con- 
sidered as  a  body  of  ideas  or  of  precepts.  And  for  this 
influence  of  the  personality  of  Jesus  to  reach  its 
highest  efficacy,  it  must  be  recognized  as  supreme  and 
paramount.  Assuredly,  if  we  believe  the  words  of  the 
Gospel,  there  are  many  who  have  in  various  degrees 
lived  out  Christ's  ideal,  though  they  have  not  taken 
His  name  upon  their  lips.  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done 
it  unto  one  of  these  My  brethren,  even  these  least,  ye 
have  done  it  imto  Me."  But,  speaking  broadly,  it  is  easier 
to  follow  Christ  when  we  know  whom  we  are  following. 
The  influence  of  Jesus  will  not  be  supremely  felt  in 
a  community  which  puts  Him  side  by  side  with  the 
Buddha  or  the  Bab  or  Keshub  Chunder  Sen.  The 
embodiment  of  the  moral  ideal  in  a  Person,  the  con- 
centration of  moral  effort  up)on  the  following  of  that 
Person,  the  recognition  of  a  unique  spiritual  authority 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     277 

and  supremacy  in  that  Person,  the  beUef  in  the  possi- 
bility of  approach  to  God  through  Him — these  have 
always  been  characteristic  notes  of  the  Christian 
Religion :  and  to  these  it  has  always,  I  beUeve,  owed 
its  highest  spiritual  effectiveness.  A  Christianity 
without  Christ — or  a  Christianity  in  which  Christ  is 
not  emphatically  put  above  other  masters — will  always 
be  a  maimed  and  not  very  effective  Christianity. 

While  therefore  we  may  recognize  to  the  full  that 
there  may  be  many  genuine  followers  of  Jesus  in  the 
Brahmo  Somaj  or  in  some  reformed  Jewish  Society, 
I  believe  that  Jesus  will  always  be  better  followed  in 
a  society  which  actually  recognizes  His  unique  posi- 
tion. If  a  community  actually  came  consciously  to 
realize  this  unique  position  of  Jesus,  it  would,  I  should 
imagine,  sooner  or  later  wish  to  acknowledge  the  fact 
by  adopting  the  name  of  Christian,  by  identifying 
itself  with  the  body  of  Christ's  followers  throughout 
the  world,  and  by  claiming  as  its  own,  deliberately  and 
consciously,  the  whole  spiritual  treasure  which  has 
come  down  to  them  from  the  Christianity  of  the  past. 
It  would  not  follow,  of  course,  that  it  would  renounce 
all  spiritual  affinity  with  the  spiritual  past  of  its  own 
race.  Christianity  has  already  appropriated  much 
spiritual  truth  which  is  not  of  Christian  origin.  What 
it  has  done  in  the  past,  it  will  probably  do  in  the 
future.  The  Christianity  of  the  East  may  hereafter 
appropriate  to  itself,  and  be  palpably  coloured  by,  all 
that    is   best    in   the   teaching   of    Confucianism,    of 


278  Conscience  and  Christ 

Hindooism  or  of  Buddhism.  But  these  teachings  are 
not  very  likely  to  be  "  baptized  into  Christ  "  as  fully  as 
truth  demands  where  the  central  position  of  Jesus  in  the 
rehgious  history  of  the  world  is  not  formally  recoi: 
nized.  Even  from  the  point  of  view  of  Psychology — 
that  science  to  which  our  Equi-religionists  are  so  fond 
of  appealing — we  may  treat  it  as  an  established  fact 
that  a  certain  exclusiveness  and  concentration  of 
devotion  is  essential  to  the  reUgion  producing  its 
fullest  effect  upon  heart  and  life.  No  teacher  ever 
did  much  who  only  believed  in  his  religion  as  one  of 
many  equally  permissible  forms  of  approach  to  God. 
This  consideration  woidd  not  justify  our  professing  to 
find  in  Christianity  a  uniqueness  or  a  superiority  to  other 
rehgions  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  facts  of  history. 
But  it  does  make  it  important  that  we  should  not 
suffer  ourselves  to  drift  into  these  fashionable  modes 
of  exaggerated  toleration  unless  we  feel  absolutely 
compelled  to  do  so  by  loyalty  to  truth.  As  far  as  I 
understand  them,  the  facts  of  religious  history  support 
the  unique  position  which  Christianity  claims  for  its 
Founder. 

I  have  so  far  avoided  the  use  of  definite  dogmatu 
language  or  reference  to  the  dogmatic  formulae  of 
CathoUc  Christianity.  I  have  so  far  said  nothing 
which  might  not  be  accepted  by  those  Unitarians  who 
do  actually  give  Jesus  a  supreme  and  central  position 
in   their   envisagement   of   the   Universe — such   Uni- 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     279 

tarians,  I  mean,  as  Channing  or  Martineau  or  Dr. 
Drummond.  But  if  we  do  agree  to  put  Jesus  in  this 
supreme  place — to  regard  Him  as  the  supreme  Example, 
the  supreme  Prophet,  the  supreme  Revealer  of  God — 
if  we  come  to  regard  the  ReUgion  which  He  founded 
not  merely  as  one  of  many  parallel  Religions,  but  as 
the  final  or  absolute  Religion,  the  culminating  product 
of  all  religious  evolution,  then  the  question  will  arise 
in  what  language  this  conviction  may  be  most  suitably 
expressed ;  or,  better,  what  view  of  the  relation  of 
Christ  to  God  supplies  the  best  interpretation  of  the 
facts  revealed  by  history  and  religious  experience. 
On  this  very  difficult  enquiry  it  is  no  part  of  my 
present  task  to  enter.  I  will  only  say  a  very  few  words 
as  to  the  relation  in  which  it  stands  to  the  question 
I  have  been  actually  discussing. 

We  have  most  of  us  come,  I  imagine,  to  recognize 
the  historical  fact  that  traditional  Christian  doctrine 
is  the  result  of  the  Church's  reflection  about  its 
Founder.  It  expresses  the  sense  which  Christ's 
followers  have  entertained  of  His  unique  spiritual 
importance.  It  has  expressed  that  sense  in  terms 
which  were  taken  from  the  metaphysical  dialect  of  the 
ancient  Graeco-Roman  world,  and  which  impUed  the 
ideas  of  that  metaphysic.  That  metaphysical  dialect 
is  not  ours  :  some  of  the  metaphysical  conceptions 
which  it  implies  are  not  ours.  We  do  not  naturally 
think  in  terms  of  Ousia  and  Hypostasis,  Logos  and 
Perichoresis,  Generation  and  Procession.    And  there- 


28o  Conscience  and  Christ 

fore  I  do  not  believe  that  Christianity  is  eternally 
committed  to  the  formulae  of  the  past :  we  may  not 
say  that  a  religions  body  has  ceased  to  be  Christian 
which  has  abandoned  some  of  these  terms  and  adopted 
others.  But  there  is  always  an  enormous  presumption, 
within  the  rehgious  sphere,  in  favour  of  keeping  up  our 
spiritual  continuity  with  our  own  past.  If  we  are 
agreed  that  it  is  ethically  and  religiously  healthy  to 
give  Christ  a  supreme  and  a  unique  position  in  our 
rehgious  and  ethical  Ufe — to  think  of  Him  as  occupy- 
ing a  unique  position  in  relation  both  to  God  and  to 
Humanity — the  traditional  CathoUc  language  has  a 
strong  presumption  in  its  favour.  Whether  we  can 
put  Christ  into  this  position  depends  in  the  main  upon 
the  importance  which  we  attach  to  His  moral  and 
religious  teaching,  and  to  the  estimate  which  we  form 
of  His  character  considered  as  an  expression  of  His 
ideal.  The  strictly  rehgious  side  of  His  teaching  is 
excluded  from  our  present  subject.  In  these  lectures 
I  have  endeavoured  to  give  reasons  for  thinking  that  we 
am  attribute  a  supreme  position  and  unique  value  to  the 
moral  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  and  to  the  character 
which  is  disclosed  in  His  teaching,  His  hfe,  and  His 
death.  I  believe  that  an  examination  of  the  strictly 
rehgious  or  theological  side  of  Christ's  teaching  would 
yield  the  same  result — that  we  should  find  His  teach- 
ing about  God,  and  about  man's  relation  to  Him,  the 
highest  teaching  that  the  world  has  known.  And  it 
is  a  teaching  which  is  not  altogether  separable  from  a 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     281 

certain  view  about  His  own  nature  and  relation  to 
God.  For  it  is  just  in  His  supreme  consciousness  of  a 
filial  relation  to  God,  of  intimate  union  with  God,  in 
which  we  see  exhibited  the  true  attitude  of  Humanity 
in  general  to  God.  And  the  two  lines  of  enquiry — the 
ethical  and  the  religious — are  closely  connected.  For 
if  we  start  with  the  conviction  that  God  exists  and 
that  He  may  best  be  thought  of  in  the  light  of  the 
highest  moral  ideal  known  to  Humanity,  then  it 
follows  that,  wherever  we  discover  this  highest  moral 
ideal,  there  we  must  recognize  the  highest  revelation 
of  God  which  the  human  mind  can  apprehend.  We 
have  seen  that  Jesus  was  the  first  to  teach  in  its  full 
purity  that  moral  ideal  which,  so  far  as  it  can  be 
condensed  into  a  single  principle,  expresses  itself  in 
the  words  that  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  Law.  He 
was  the  first  to  teach  also — ^with  full  clearness  and 
purity — ^the  idea  that  God  must  be  thought  of  in  the 
light  of  this  ideal,  as  the  common  Father  of  Humanity 
whose  nature  is  best  expressed  by  the  word  Love.^ 

1  In  The  Teaching  of  Christ » by  the  Rev.  E.  G.  Selwyn,  an  attempt 
is  made  to  deny  that  Jesus  *'  revealed  God  as  *  Father  '  "  (p.  56). 
The  grounds  for  this  somewhat  surprising  statement  seem  to  be 
that  "  the  teaching  about  the  Father,  where  it  is  direct  and  not 
parabolic,  is  given  to  those  who  have  already  responded  to  His 
preaching.  .  .  .  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  we  are  told,  was  uttered 
after  '  His  disciples  came  unto  Him.'  "  Surely  if  this  last  statement 
be  accepted,  it  would  not  alter  the  fact  that  Christ  did  teach  it ;  but, 
if  there  is  a  certain  result  of  criticism,  it  is  that  the  introductions  to 
our  Lord's  discourses  and  the  joinings  of  His  sayings  are  frequently 
literary  devices  of  the  compilers  and  cannot  be  implicitly  relied 
upon  as  history.  Nobody  now  supposes  that  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  as  a  whole  was  delivered  on  any  one  occasion.    Further,  he 


282  Conscience  and  Christ 

And  His  life  and  the  character  which  it  reveals  im- 
press us  as  having  been  in  completest  harmony  with 
that  ideal.  This  is  briefly  the  line  of  thought  which 
leads  us  up  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  in  the  teaching, 
the  mind,  the  Personality  of  Christ  that  the  highest 

contends  that  (i)  the  idea  of  God's  Fatherhood  was  akeady  known 
to  the  Jews,  and  (2)  that  Jesus  did  not  teach  that  "  God's  Father- 
hood was  a  truth  independent  of  the  believer's  relation  to  Himself." 
Surely  these  two  reasons  are  mutually  exclusive,  unless  Mr.  Sclwyn 
is  actually  prepared  to  say  that  the  prophetic  belief  in  the  Father- 
hood of  God  was  unfounded,  and  the  second  assertion  chiefly  rests 
upon  the  fourth  Gospel.  If  he  appeals  to  that  Gospel,  will  he  say 
that,  even  to  its  author.  "  God  is  love  "  means  merely  "  God  loves 
all  members  of  the  Christian  Church  "  ? 

BIr.  Selwyn  further  nsssiis  that "  He  no  more  teaches  the  Brother- 
hood of  Man  than  the  Fatherhood  of  God  "  (p.  109)  on  the  ground 
that  the  early  Christian  writers  only  apply  the  word  "  brother  "  or 
"  brethren  "  to  fellow-Christians,  and  not  to  the  Gentiles.  Even 
if  this  were  true,  it  would  not  show  that  our  Lord  did  not  teach  the 
wider  truth  Himself.  No  doiil>t  Jesos  was  always  speaking  to  Jews, 
and  did  not  often  explicitly  consider  the  case  of  Gentiles.  But  does 
Mr.  Selwyn  seriously  mean  to  say  that  oar  Lord--e.g.  in  the  parable 
of  the  Good  Samaritan — ^meaot  that  the  term  "  neighbour  "  was  to 
be  understood  only  of  the  brother  Jew  or  the  fellow-Christian  ?  If 
not.  the  idea  of  the  Brotherhood  of  all  men  is  clearly  latent  in  that 
parable  as  in  all  the  teaching  which  imphes  the  doctrine  of  universal 
love.  The  question  whether  the  word  "  brother"  is  used  is  com- 
paratively unimportant. 

With  regard  to  the  later  Christian  Church  it  is  true  that "  brother  " 
meant  primarily  "  fellow-Christian,"  but  it  would  be  a  libel  on  the 
early  Church  and  opposed  to  all  the  historical  evidence  to  say  that 
it  did  not  teach  the  duty  of  kmng  pagans.  What  is  the  difference 
t)ctween  loving  a  man  as  oneself  and  treating  him  as  a  "  brother  "  ? 
No  doubt  the  ideal  of  love  is  not  /nl/y  reached  till  it  is  mutual,  but 
that  fact  does  not  destroy  the  duty  of  trying  to  realize  it.  It  is  a 
pity  that  a  writer  otherwise  not  illiberal  or  uncritical  should  have 
allowed  the  desire  to  prove  that  the  "  liberal  Protestant  "  has 
always  been  wrong  to  get  the  better  of  him.  and  should  so  frequently 
insist  on  reading  back  into  the  teaching  of  Jesus  not  merely  the 
germs  but  the  developed  ideas  of  later  *'  Catholicism."  In  the 
writings  of  liberal  Protestants  he  complains  of  "  the  sudden  and 
secret  irruption  of  the  subjective  element  into  discussions  which 
purport  to  be  objective  and  bcientihc  "  (p.  56).    I  do  not  deny  that 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     283 

and  completest  Revelation  of  God  has  been  made. 
And  this  is  the  fundamental  truth  which  Greek  re- 
ligious Philosophy  expressed  by  saying  that  the  Son 
or  Logos,  the  Reason  or  Word  of  God,  was  incarnate  in 
Him.  *'  The  Word  took  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us, 
and  we  beheld  His  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only- 
begotten  of  the  Father/'  If  I  were  to  develope  the 
arguments  which  justify  the  application  to  Jesus  of 
theological  language  such  as  is  used  by  the  Christian 
Creeds,  I  should  lay  the  chief  stress  upon  this — that 
now  after  the  lapse  of  nearly  two  thousand  years  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  about  God  and  about  the  moral 
ideal  still  appeals  to  us  as  containing  the  vital  essence 
of  all  Religion  and  of  all  Morality ;  that  it  presents 
itself  to  us  as  the  true  basis  of  all  further  development 
whether  in  the  sphere  of  Theology  or  of  Morality,  and 
that  it  is  in  the  Church  which  Jesus  founded  that  such 
a  development  has  taken  place  and  is  taking  place  in 
the  fullest  and  richest  measure.  I  do  not  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  only  man  in  whom  the  Word  or  Reason 
or  Wisdom  of  God  has  dwelt.  That  God  has  been 
revealed  in  some  measure  by  other  great  prophets  and 
teachers,  that  He  dwells  to  some  extent  in  the  Con- 
science of  all  men,  was  fully  and  cordially  recognized 

the  complaint  has  sometimes  been  justified,  but  Mr.  Selwyn  seems 
to  me  to  have  merely  exchanged  one  subjective  bias  for  another. 
The  fact  that  he  has  done  so  is  to  my  mind  the  chief  defect  in  an 
otherwise  excellent  book.  Fortunately  the  belief  that  God  is  the 
common  Father  of  men,  and  that  Christ  taught  the  Brotherhood  of 
man  is  not  often  explicitly  repudiated  either  by  Catholics  or 
Protestants. 


284  Conscience  and  Christ 

by  the  philosophical  Greek  Fathers.  But  the  unique 
appeal  which  Christ  still  makes  to  our  Conscience 
both  by  His  teaching  and  by  His  Ufe  and  death  of  self- 
sacrifice,  taken  together  with  the  supreme  place  which 
the  reUgion  founded  by  Him  has  occupied,  and  still 
occupies,  in  the  spiritual  history  of  the  w^orld,  justifies 
us  in  saying  that  with  Him  the  Logos  was  united  in 
a  supreme  manner,  that  in  Him  God  is  most  fully 
revealed  to  men,  or,  in  the  language  of  St.  Paul, 
that  in  Him  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily.  And  the  greatest  advantage  of  putting  Christ 
in  this  position  is  that  it  enormously  strengthens  the 
influence  of  Jesus  and  the  ideal  which  He  represents, 
over  the  moral  and  religious  life.  And  therefore  I 
believe  that  it  is  in  religious  communities  which  retain 
the  ancient  CathoUc  tradition,  or  at  least  recognize  in 
some  explicit  way  the  fundamental  idea  which  has 
expressed  itself  in  that  tradition,  that  the  influence  of 
Christ's  ideal  is  Ukely  to  attain  its  maximum  intensity. 
There  are  followers  of  Christ  who  have  not  taken 
His  name  upon  their  lips.  There  aire  others  who  do 
assume  that  name  but  who  scruple  to  speak  of  Him  as 
God  incarnate.  That  should  not  prevent  our  recog- 
nizing these  last  as  fellow-Christians  and  co-operating 
with  them  in  all  manner  of  Christian  activities ;  but 
equally  it  should  not  prevent  us  from  affirming  that  for 
ourselves  the  following  of  Christ  is  made  easier  by  think- 
ing of  Him  not  only  as  the  supreme  Teacher  and  the 
supreme  Example,  but  as  the  Being  in  whom  that 


Christian  Ethics  and  other  Systems     285 

union  of  God  and  Man  after  which  all  ethical  Religion 
aspires,  is  most  fully  accomplished,  and  through  whom 
the  individual  soul  can  attain  in  the  fullest  measure 
that  degree  of  complete  likeness  to  God  which  its 
spiritual  capacity  admits. 


APPENDIX  I.    ON  THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 

The  question  may  be  raised,  "  In  what  relation  does  the 
love  of  God  stand  to  the  love  of  man  ?  "  There  is  no 
expUcit  attempt  to  reconcile  or  reduce  to  unity  the  two 
commandments  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself.  But  if 
the  conception  of  God  taught  by  Him  is  that  of  a  lo\ing 
and  righteous  Father  who  wills  the  true  good  of  all  His 
creatures,  it  is  a  fair  deduction  that  the  love  of  God  vn\l 
show  itself  in  the  love  of  man.  Will  it  show  itself  in 
nothing  else  ?  The  answer  to  that  question  will  depend 
upon  the  view  we  take  of  the  attitude  of  Jesus  to  the 
ceremonial  law,  a  subject  which  has  already  been  briefly 
discussed.  If  the  view  I  have  taken  on  that  subject  be 
correct,  we  may  say  that,  in  so  far  as  Jesus  recognized  the 
non-permanence  and  non-essentiality  of  the  Mosaic  Law, 
He  must  be  taken  by  implication  to  have  recognized  that 
in  their  actual  content  the  two  commandments  come  to 
the  same  thing.  The  love  of  God  can  express  itself  in 
actual  conduct  only  by  the  doing  of  God's  will.  If  God 
wills  nothing  but  the  true  good  of  man  (and,  as  we  might 
be  inclined  to  add,  all  sentient  beings),  the  conduct  to 
which  the  love  of  God  prompts  will  be  the  same  as  that 
enjoined  by  the  second  great  commandment  which,  in  the 
words  of  the  Gospel,  is  "  like  unto "  the  first.*  The 
performance  of  ritual  ordinances,  sacrifices,  acts  of  worship, 

^  Matt.  xxii.  39.  probably  an  addition  of  the  Evangelist ;   Mark 
(xiL  31)  hat  simply  "  the  second  is  this." 

286 


On  the  Love  of  God  287 

etc.,  will  thus  only  be  valuable  in  so  far  as  they  stimulate 
to  the  doing  of  God's  will  in  the  service  of  man.  It  is  true 
that,  if  *'  on  these  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and 
prophets,"  be  treated  as  an  addition  of  the  EvangeHst, 
Jesus  does  not  explicitly  recognize  that  there  are  no  other 
commandments  not  included  in  the  two,  but  in  many 
passages  He  implies  it :  for  the  other  commandments 
cease  to  be  binding  when  they  conflict  with  them,  and 
they  do  conflict  the  moment  they  are  not  duly  subordi- 
nated to  the  two.  To  spend  time  and  money  on  sacrifices, 
except  so  far  as  to  do  so  will  make  the  sacrificer  or  others 
more  willing  to  perform  the  two  great  commandments, 
would  be  to  put  the  command  to  sacrifice  above  the 
command  to  love.  The  implication  was  fully  developed  by 
St.  Paul  and  the  Church. 

Does  this  imply  that  the  first  commandment  becomes 
superfluous,  and  that  it  may  in  practice  be  superseded  by 
the  second  ?  Not  at  all.  For,  (i)  it  is  of  extreme  importance 
to  recognize  that  the  service  of  man  is  the  Will  of  God — 
that  religious  motives  should  be  brought  to  bear  upon  and 
invoked  to  secure  the  performance  of  the  duties  prescribed 
by  abstract  morahty.  (2)  In  particular  the  love  of  ideal 
perfection  is  likely  to  be  stimulated  by  the  beHef  in  an 
ideally  perfect  Being.  Devotion  to  a  Person  is  a  stronger 
motive  than  devotion  to  an  idea.  (3)  The  insistence  upon 
the  love  of  God  is  particularly  valuable  in  preventing  *'  the 
enthusiasm  of  humanity  "  from  degenerating  into  mere 
hedonistic  Utilitarianism.  It  tends  to  emphasize  the 
truth  that  the  good  of  man  which  the  Christian  is  to  pro- 
mote is  not  his  mere  pleasure  but  his  true  good — that 
ideal  of  Humanity  which  constitutes  the  true  end  for 
which  his  life  was  designed  by  God,  and  which  is  an  ex- 
pression of  the  character  which  belongs  eternally  to  God. 
The  love  of  God  is  love  of  the  moral  ideal  considered 


288  Conscience  and  Christ 

not  as  a  mere  ideal,  but  an  ideal  realized  in  a  personal 
Being.* 

The  teaching  of  Christ  recognizes  two  motives  for 
Morality  which  prompt  to  the  same  conduct — love  of  God 
and  love  of  man.  There  is  no  trace  in  His  teaching  of  the 
monstrous  doctrine  which  I  have  heard  preached  by  men 
who  are  regarded  as  typical  (if  rather  old-fashioned)  repre- 
sentatives of  Anglican  doctrine — that  love  of  man  is 
impossible  without  the  love  of  God  consciously  present 
and  recognized  as  such  in  the  mind  of  the  agent.  Thi^ 
doctrine  is,  indeed,  opposed  to  an  explicit  declaration  of 
Jesus  :  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  one  of  these  My 
brethren,  even  these  least,  ye  did  it  unto  Me."*  (It 
is  possible  that  "  brethren"  may  mean  merely  '*  followers 
of  Christ/'  but  this  is  hardly  likely  if  the  words  be  a  genuine 
utterance  of  Jesus.)  This  beautiful  saying  implies  that 
there  may  be  much  true  Christian  morality  in  those  who 
have  not  used  the  name  of  Christ,  or  been  consciously 
inspired  by  the  love  of  God.  This  is  quite  consistent  with 
the  assertion  that  ideally  the  love  of  God  ought  to  be 
combined  with  the  love  of  man,  and  that  the  first  may  be 
a  most  valuable  mode  of  inspiring  the  second.  Both,  in 
fact,  spring  from  the  same  root — the  love  of  all  that  is 
worthy  of  love,  love  of  what  is  good  absolutely  or  imiversally. 
The  later  doctrine  of  the  Church  brought  the  two  motives 
together  by  its  insistence  upon  the  love  of  Christ — the 
ideal  Man  in  whom  the  perfection  of  God  was  most  fully 
revealed  and  realized — at  once  the  highest  revelation  of 
the  divine  character  and  the  supreme  example  of  human 
goodness.    This  union  of  the  two  ideal  motives  to  Morality 

^  "  Conscientiousness  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  love  of 
God."  Tyrrell,  Essays  on  Faith  and  Immortality,  p.  26.  The 
sa>'ing  may  be  accepted  with  the  proviso  mentioned  above. 

*  Matt.  XXV.  40. 


On  the  Love  of  God  289 

has,  no  doubt,  been  one  of  the  ideas  to  which  the  Christian 
Religion  owes  its  strength.  It  still  possesses  enormous 
value  ;  but  it  should  always  be  insisted  on  in  such  a  way 
as  (i)  to  keep  prominent  the  idea  that  Christ  is  the  Revealer 
of  God,  and  not  to  substitute  the  Son  for  the  Father  or 
encourage  the  idea  that  the  Father's  character  is  unlike 
the  Son's,  or  that  the  Father  is  too  far  off  and  impersonal  a 
Being  to  be  loved  and  prayed  to  ;  (2)  to  treat  the  historic 
Christ  as  the  symbol  and  embodiment  of  ideal  Humanity, 
without  resolving  Him  into  a  Christ  who  is  ideal  in  the 
sense  of  being  unhistorical.  It  is  right  to  do  good  to  man 
*'  for  the  sake  of  Christ ''  ;  we  cannot  legitimately  say  "  we 
will  do  good  to  man  only  for  the  sake  of  Christ :  if  it  were 
not  for  Christ,  we  should  do  nothing  of  the  kind/'  True 
Christian  love,  as  has  been  finely  said  by  Seeley,  is  **  the 
love  of  the  ideal  Man  in  each  man,  or,  as  Christ  Himself 
might  have  said,  the  love  of  God  in  each  man  "  (Ecce  Homo, 
chap,  xviii).  It  is  a  love  of  the  possible  Christ  in  every 
man. 

Further  to  discuss  this  subject  would  involve  an 
examination  of  the  whole  question  of  the  relation  of 
Religion  to  Morality,  which  I  have  dealt  with  somewhat 
fully  in  The  Theory  of  Good  and  Evil,  Book  III,  chap.  ii. 


APPENDIX  II.    ON  CHRIST'S  TEACHING  ABOUT 
FUTURE  REWARD  AND  PUNISHMENT  ^ 

The  question  of  our  Lord's  teaching  about  the  future  Ufe 
does  not  strictly  belong  to  our  subject,  but  it  is  so  closely 
connected  with  it  that  it  seems  advisable  to  add  a  short 
discussion  of  it  to  these  lectures.  It  is,  indeed,  scarcely 
possible  to  draw  a  strict  Hne  between  the  ethical  teaching 
of  any  teacher  and  his  attitude  towards  the  future  Ufe. 
The  teacher's  ideal  comes  out  in  his  conception  of  the 
future  life  itself  and  of  the  relation  in  which  it  stands  to 
the  hfe  of  action  and  aspiration  here  and  now.  We  cannot 
help  facing  the  question  whether  there  is  anything  in  our 
Lord's  teaching  upon  this  subject  which  prevents  our 
accepting  Him  as  our  supreme  moral  Authority. 

Attempts  are  sometimes  made  to  disparage  the  moral 
teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  on  the  ground  that  He  invited  men 
to  be  good  and  to  do  good  from  hope  of  future  reward  and 
dread  of  future  punishment .  Sometimes  it  is  even  suggested 
that  such  hopes  and  fears  are  set  before  men  as  the  sole 
motives  for  righteousness  and  the  avoidance  of  sin.  This 
suggestion  can,  I  think,  be  definitely  refuted.  Christ  did 
appreciate  and  teach  the  intrinsic  value  of  goodness  and 
the  intrinsic  evil  of  sin.  The  question  was,  of  course,  one 
which  had  never  been  presented  to  Him  in  the  technical 
language  of  philosophy.  But  the  idea  that  goodness  is  to  be 
valued  solely  on  account  of  its  posthumous  reward  is  in- 

^  This  note  is  reprinted  from  the  Modim  Ckurckmam  by  kind 
permission  of  the  editor. 

290 


Reward  and  Punishment  291 

consistent  with  the  whole  tone  of  His  teaching  both  about 
God  and  about  human  duty.  He  distinctly  makes  the  love 
of  God  the  supreme  and  ideal  motive  for  goodness.  You 
cannot  love  from  hope  of  reward  or  fear  of  punishment. 
God  was  to  Him  a  loving  Father,  intrinsically  righteous  and 
beneficent ;  and  that  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  theory 
that  the  divine  commands  are  wholly  arbitrary,  that  virtue 
means  merely  the  doing  of  what  is  commanded  by  God  for 
the  sake  of  reward  and  the  avoidance  of  what  is  forbidden 
under  penalties :  and  nothing  less  than  this  is  implied  in 
the  theory  that  the  mere  hope  of  reward  or  fear  of  punish- 
ment are  the  sole  motives  for  right  conduct.  But  it  is  quite 
undeniable  that  He  did  also  seek  to  encourage  men  to  do 
right  and  to  resist  temptation  by  the  thought  of  a  future 
life,  the  character  of  which  would  depend  upon  the  use  they 
made  of  their  wills  in  this  Hfe.  If  this  is  to  be  regarded  as 
demoraHzing  "  Eudaemonism,''  most  of  the  Moralists  who 
have  seriously  believed  in  Immortality  will  incur  the  same 
condemnation.  There  is  nothing  demorahzing  in  such 
teaching  if  it  is  not  made  the  sole  or  the  chief  motive  for 
virtue,  and  this  most  certainly  our  Lord  never  did.  I 
deliberately  exclude  from  this  enquiry  all  other  aspects  of 
our  Lord's  "  Eschatology '' — the  question  what  He  meant 
by  the  Kingdom,  when  and  how  it  was  to  come,  etc.  That 
question  has  already  been  discussed,  so  far  as  seemed  neces- 
sary, in  the  second  lecture.  We  must  treat  the  Eschatology, 
for  the  present  purpose,  as  a  doctrine  about  the  future  hfe. 
Whether  this  life  was  to  be  lived  "  in  Heaven ''  or  on  a 
regenerated  earth,  is  a  question  of  no  ethical  importance. 
The  hope  of  future  blessedness  has  ethical  value  (i) 
educationally,  as  leading  up  to  and  preparing  men  for  a 
more  disinterested  goodness  ;  (2)  as  affording  help  and 
encouragement  to  those  who  are  indeed  hungering  and 
thirsting  after  righteousness,  but  are  as  yet  far  from  being 


292  Conscience  and  Christ 

perfected  Christians  or  from  having  (in  Kantian  phrase) 
perfectly  "  autonomous  "  wills.  (3)  In  so  far  as  the  reward 
is  thought  of  as  itself  consisting  in  a  state  of  greater  moral 
perfection  or  as  a  happiness  which  is  the  natural  and 
necessary  consequence  of  goodness,  the  doctrine  of  reward 
and  punishment  begins  to  assimie  a  form  in  which  it  is  not 
only  consistent  with  the  belief  in  the  intrinsic  value  of 
goodness,  but  becomes  hard  to  distinguish  from  it.  It  is, 
indeed,  not  the  whole  object  of  the  good  man  to  win  peace 
of  conscience  or  "  inward  harmony  "  whether  in  this  hfe 
or  the  next  ;  but,  in  so  far  as  he  cares  about  goodness,  he 
will  not  be  able  to  win  inward  peace  or  happiness  without 
it ;  nobody  can  value  goodness  without  valuing  a  good 
conscience.  Thus  the  ethical  value  of  the  behef  in  a  future 
life  depends  largely  upon  the  character  of  the  Heaven  and 
the  Hell  which  it  encourages  men  to  expect.  That  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  which  Christ  invites  men  to  qualify 
for  was  thought  of  in  a  spiritual  and  ethical  manner  I 
beheve  to  be  undeniable.  There  is  no  reason  why  this 
should  not  be  admitted  even  by  those  who  refuse  to  allow 
that  our  Lord's  "  Eschatology  "  in  any  way  went  beyond 
the  level  reached  by  the  prophetic  and  apocalyptic  teaching 
of  Judaism.  The  "  Kingdom  of  Heaven  "  was  always  to 
the  Jew  a  "  Kingdom  of  righteousness  and  peace,"  what- 
ever else  it  may  have  been. 

I  confess  I  feel  some  indignation  at  the  insincerity  and 
superficiality  with  which  these  cant  objections  to  any  moral 
teaching  which  is  connected  with  the  hopes  of  a  future  hfe 
are  often  repeated.  What  Moralist,  except  perhaps  an 
ultra-Kantian  rigorist  of  a  type  which  is  not  now  much  in 
fashion,  objects  to  a  teacher  trying  to  keep  boys  and  girls 
—or  men  and  women — from  yielding  to  temptations  to 
drunkenness  or  impurity  by  telling  them  that  they  will  be 
ruining  their  future  happiness  in  this  present  life  by  so 


Reward  and  Punishment  293 

c^^ing  ?  Why  is  happiness — whether  we  think  of  ordinary 
enjoyment  or  of  higher  aesthetic  and  intellectual  pleasures, 
of  human  affections  or  of  peace  of  conscience — any  the  less 
valuable  or  less  noble  because  it  is  thought  of  as  lasting 
for  ever  ?  Undoubtedly  the  idea  of  ''  right  for  the  sake  of 
right  " — of  the  perseitas  honi  (as  the  Schoolmen  called  it), 
of  duty  for  duty's  sake,  of  the  autonomous  will  and  the  like 
— was  not  set  forth  by  Jesus  in  the  abstract  way  in  which 
it  has  been  taught  by  the  best  later  philosophy,  though  not 
always  by  the  philosophy  of  those  who  disparage  Christian 
teaching  on  this  head.  In  the  insistence  on  this  idea  by 
later  Christian  teachers  we  may  recognize  a  real  develop- 
ment of  the  teaching  of  Jesus — a  development  which  only 
brings  out  and  emphasizes  what  is  always  implied  in  the 
teaching  of  the  Master  Himself.  This  is  doubtless  one  of 
the  truths  which  have  been  brought  out  into  fuller  light  by 
the  later  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Church,  but  it  is  clearly 
impHcit  in  His  own  teaching.  If  we  ask  ourselves  how  the 
relation  between  virtue  and  its  *'  reward  "  presented  itself 
to  Jesus  Himself,  the  following  remarks  of  Mr.  Montefiore 
probably  get  as  near  to  His  real  conception  as  we  shall 
succeed  in  doing  : — 

"  It  may  also  be  observed  that  the  '  eudaemonism  '  of 
the  beatitudes  is  of  a  special  kind.  They  do  not  say,  *  Do 
this,  or  be  this,  because  you  will  gain  a  reward,'  or, '  do  not 
do  this  because  you  will  be  punished.'  But  they  say,  *  A 
certain  line  of  action,  a  certain  disposition  of  mind 
bring  happiness  now  and  hereafter.'  The  result  follows 
necessarily  from  the  cause.  It  is  the  lawof  God.  '  Heaven ' 
and  happiness  follow  as  certainly  from  goodness  as  their 
opposites  follow  from  wickedness.  The  one  is  not  an 
arbitrarily  added  reward  ;  the  other  is  not  an  arbitrarily 
added  punishment.    The  result  is  contained  in  the  pre- 


294  Conscience  and  Christ 

miss,  as  surely  as  the  result  of  health-giving  medicines 
or  death-dealing  drugs  is  already  contained  within  them. 
The  bliss  of  virtue,  both  *  now '  and  '  hereafter/  is  a 
continuous  state,  and  not  a  something  added  ab  extra  to 
form  a  reward,  and  mtdaiis  mutandis,  the  same  may  be 
said  of  vice.  Thus  the  sting  of  the  supposed  '  eudaemon- 
ism  '  is  removed."  ^ 

It  is  not,  indeed,  and  could  not  truthfully  be  asserted 
that  peace  of  conscience  or  "  the  goodwill,"  is  all  that  is 
necessary  to  happiness,  and  anyone  who  believes  that  the 
P6wer  who  rules  the  world  is  loving  cannot  but  beheve 
that  the  other  things  necessary  to  happiness  will  ultimately 
be  added  for  those  who  abready  possess  this  its  most 
essential  element,  and  so  much  was  certainly  taught  by 
our  Lord. 

Much  more  might  very  well  be  said  upon  this  most 
important  topic,  but  my  special  object  in  these  pages  is  to 
ask :  "  What  was  the  actual  teaching  of  Jesus  as  to  the 
duration  of  future  punishment  ?  "  Mr.  Montefiore,  who  so 
admirably  defends  our  Lord  from  the  charge  of  eudae- 
monism,  expresses  great  horror  at  what  he  supposes  to  be 
His  teaching  about  everlasting  punishment,  a  doctrine 
which  even  orthodox  modem  Judaism  has  repudiated. 
Upon  this  subject  I  would  make  the  following  remarks  : — 

(i)  I  should  like  to  begin  by  stating  quite  definitely  that 
the  doctrine  of  everlasting  punishment — in  its  ordinary, 
traditional  acceptation — presents  us  with  a  view  of  the 
character  of  God  so  dearly  revolting  to  the  modern  con- 
science, and  so  inconsistent  with  the  general  teaching  of 
our  Lord  Himself  about  the  Love  of  God,  that  we  could 
not  accept  it  in  deference  to  any  external  authority  what- 
ever. I  make  this  remark  in  order  that  I  may  not  be 
^  Tk0  SynopHc  Gospds,  II,  p.  485. 


Reward  and  Punishment  295 

accused  of  approaching  the  subject  with  a  fixed  deter- 
mination neither  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  everlasting 
punishment,  nor  to  question  the  view  usually  accepted  by 
Christians  as  to  the  moral  authority  of  their  Master.  If 
Jesus  did  indeed  teach  the  doctrine  of  everlasting  punish- 
ment, and  meant  by  it  what  the  words  naturally  and 
obviously  suggest,  modern  Christians  would  have  to 
recognize  in  such  an  unquestioning  acceptance  of  a 
traditional  Jewish  view  another  of  those  limitations  of 
His  knowledge  which  in  some  matters  Orthodoxy  itself 
has  been  compelled  to  acknowledge.  It  is  not  perhaps  quite 
inconceivable — if  we  approach  the  subject  without  pre- 
suppositions— that  He  might  have  taught  the  traditional 
view  in  the  traditional  words  without  seeing  how  incon- 
sistent it  was  with  His  own  conception  of  the  loving  Father 
who  is  always  ready  to  forgive  the  penitent ;  but  anyone 
who  takes  a  high  view  of  the  ethical  elevation  of  Christ's 
teaching — even  apart  from  any  theological  or  Christo- 
logical  theory  about  His  divine  nature  ^ — is  justified  in 
approaching  the  subject  with  a  strong  indisposition  to 
believe  that  He  did  so. 

(2)  All  the  teaching  whether  about  future  reward  or 
future  punishment  is  of  a  metaphorical  character.  If  the 
Messianic  banquet  is  not  to  be  taken  in  a  naively  realistic 
sense  (and  even  some  Rabbis  taught  that  the  *'  eating  and 
drinking ''  were  not  to  be  taken  literally  2),  neither  is  the 
fate  of  those  excluded  to  be  so  understood.    They  are  shut 

^  It  would  be  out  of  place  to  take  such  views  into  consideration, 
inasmuch  as  the  moral  impression  created  by  the  religious  and 
ethical  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  the  character  which  they  reveal,  is  the 
chief  ground  of  the  Church's  teaching  about  His  Person. 

'  We  know  that  Jesus  taught  there  was  to  be  no  marrying  or 
giving  in  marriage,  and  that  the  righteous  would  be  "  as  angels  in 
heaven."  The  angels  were  never,  I  imagine,  supposed  to  eat  and 
drink. 


296  Conscience  aiid  Christ 

out  in  the  "  outer  darkness  " — outside  the  brilliantly 
lighted  banqueting  hall — where  there  is  *'  weeping  and 
gnashing  of  teeth"  (Matt.  xxv.  30).  Moreover,  the 
metaphor  here  used  is  of  a  kind  which  vividly  suggests  the 
pains  of  remorse,  though  I  am  far  from  suggesting  that 
these  are  the  only  pains  which  Jesus  thought  of,  or 
which  a  truly  ethical  conception  of  punishment  can  approve. 
As  to  that  other  metaphor,  "  where  their  worm  dieth  not, 
and  the  fire  is  not  quenched  "  (Mark  ix.  48),  it  is  probable 
that  the  primary  thought  is  simply  that  of  corruption — 
the  corruption  of  the  tomb — rather  than  of  punishment, 
and  of  a  fire  which  consumes  what  is  corrupt.  The  words 
are  vague,  and  they  are  derived  from  Isaiah  Ixvi.  24,  where 
it  is  distinctly  "  the  carcases  of  the  men  that  have  trans- 
gressed against  me  "  which  are  to  be  consumed.  Here  the 
meaning  of  "  unquenchable  "  is  clearly  *'  that  which  will 
not  be  quenched  till  it  has  cons\mied  what  is  put  into  it." 
(3)  The  only  passages  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  which 
quite  explicitly  teach  that  the  punishment  will  be 
"  aeonian  "  are  as  follows  : — 

(a)  It  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  Ufe  maimed  or  halt, 
rather  than  having  two  hands  or  two  feet  to  be  cast  into 
the  aeonian  fire  (Matt,  xviii.  8). 

(h)  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  the  aeonian  fire 
which  is  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels  (Matt. 
xxv.  41). 

(c)  And  these  shall  go  away  into  aeonian  punishment, 
but  the  righteous  into  aeonian  life  (Matt.  xxv.  46). 

To  these  three  passages  may  be  added  a  fourth,  which, 
prima  facie,  may  be  held  to  imply  the  doctrine  of  everlasting 
punishment : — 

(i)  "  Whosoever  shall  speak  against  the  Holy  Spirit, 


Reward  and  Punishment  2gy 

it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world  [aeon] 
nor  in  that  which  is  to  come  "  (Matt.  xii.  32). 

I  will  not  here  discuss  at  length  the  doubts  which  may  be 
raised  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  term  ''  aeonian  "  [alwvios] 
or  the  probable  Aramaic  original  which  it  may  represent. 
It  is  enough  to  say  that  it  need  not  necessarily  mean 
the  same  as  dtdtos,  which  is  the  ordinary  Greek  word  for 
*'  everlasting  "  ;  and  that  over  and  over  again  in  the  LXX 
and  elsewhere  it  is  used  of  things  which  clearly  are  not 
endless.  It  may  mean  *'  agelong/'  *'  very  long,"  or 
*'  belonging  to  the  future  aeon,''  and  so  be  virtually 
equivalent  to  "  future."  It  is  pretty  certain  that  for  the 
Jew  of  our  Lord's  time  it  had  acquired  the  more  definite 
meaning  ''  belonging  to  the  Messianic  age  "  ;  if  so,  the 
fire  will  be  the  fire  connected  with  the  Messianic  Judge- 
ment, the  punishment  will  be  the  Messianic  punishment. 
Nothing  will  be  determined  as  to  its  duration.  It  has, 
moreover,  often  been  remarked  that  the  word  used  for 
punishment  (KoAao-ts)  is  one  which  distinctly  suggests 
corrective,  disciplinary,  reformatory  punishment.  There 
were  other  Greek  words  for  retributive  punishment  which 
the  EvangeUst  might  have  employed  if  he  had  wished  to 
do  so.  But  such  explanations  will  probably  seem  to  some 
minds  not  very  satisfying.  After  all,  the  term  "  aeonian  " 
is  apphed  also  to  the  Ufe  of  the  blest,  and  there  is  no  doubt 
that  this  was  thought  of  as  everlasting,  though  it  may  still 
be  that  the  word  does  not  mean  "  everlasting."  Assuming 
that  it  does  imply  or  include  the  idea  of  endless  duration, 
it  is  fair  to  point  out  that  these  passages  are  all  derived 
from  the  first  Gospel ;  and,  if  there  is  a  conclusion  to 
which  the  general  results  of  recent  Gospel  criticism  point 
(no  one  insists  upon  it  more  strongly  than  Mr.  Montefiore), 
it  is  that  sayings  in  the  first  Gospel,  unsupported  by  the 


298  Conscience  and  Christ 

other   Synoptists,  are  •  quently  coloured  by  the 

doctrinal    behefs   or   c  ical    arrangements   of   the 

Judaeo-Christian  Church  at  the  end  of  the  first  century 
A.D.  These  passages  may  well  be  "  ecclesiastical  additions  " 
— Hke  the  authority  to  bind  and  loose,  the  committal  of  the 
keys  of  the  Kingdom  to  St.  Peter,  the  conmiand  to  bring 
quarrels  to  be  settled  by  the  Church,  etc.  ;  or  at  least  they 
are  in  aU  probability  very  much  modified  by  the  un- 
conscious influence  of  ecclesiastical  tradition.  And  it  is 
observable  that  the  whole  of  the  passage  in  which  the 
second  and  third  allusions  to  aeonian  punishment  occur 
("  I  was  a  stranger  and  ye  took  me  in,"  etc.)  is  one  which 
on  grounds  quite  imconnected  with  this  question  is 
by  many  critics  suspected  of  being  influenced  by  later 
tradition. 

(4)  I  should  say  that  this  might  be  accepted  as  by  far  the 
most  probable  solution  but  for  the  fact  that  the  last  of  the 
four  Matthean  passages  has  a  parallel  in  St.  Mark  (iii.  29) : — 
**  Whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit  hath 
never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  aeonian  sin,"^  and 
is  found  in  another  form  in  St.  Luke.  Now  in  this 
passage  I  would  observe  (a)  that  the  idea  of  "  everlasting  " 
or  "  eternal  "  sin  (if  it  is  to  be  so  translated)  is  not  neces- 
sarily the  same  as  that  of  "  eternal  punishment  "  ;  (b)  it  is 
not  said  that  the  sinner  against  the  Holy  Spirit  has  actually 
committed  an  "  eternal  sin,"  but  only  that  he  is  "  hable  to 
it,"  'in  danger  of  it."  This  does  no  doubt  imply  that  a 
state  of  eternal  sin  is  possible,  but  not  necessarily  that 
the  sinner's  doom  is  finally  fixed  at  the  moment  of 
death,  (c)  The  simplest  and  possibly  the  original  form 
of  this  part  of  the  saying  is  that  found  in  Luke  (xii.  10), 
which  has  nothing  about  an  "  eternal  sin,"  but  simply 

»  So   the  revised  text  for  the  textns  receptus  translated  " 
danger  ol  eternal  damnation  "  (more  strictly  "  judgement "). 


Reward  and  Punishment  299 

*'  it  shall  not  be  forgiven/'  Luke  is  here  probably 
following  Q  (cf.  Streeter  in  Oxf.  Studies  in  the  Syn. 
ProbL,  p.  171).  "  Ecclesiastical  additions  "  are  certainly  not 
peculiar  to  the  first  Gospel,  though  they  are  more  frequent 
in  that  Gospel  than  elsewhere,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that 
Mark's  ''  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin,''  and  Matthew's 
"  neither  in  this  age  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come,"  may  be 
varying  attempts  to  explain  and  emphasize  the  simple  *'  it 
shall  not  be  forgiven."  (d)  If  Mark's  "aeonian  sin"  be 
regarded  as  original,  the  meaning  may  be  "  a  sin  which  will 
be  condemned  at  the  Judgement,  which  will  exclude  from 
the  Messianic  Kingdom."  We  may  then  suppose  that  both 
Matthew  and  Luke  have  attempted  to  explain  in  different 
ways  a  word  not  easily  intelligible  to  Gentile  readers. 
(e)  If  Luke's  version  be  accepted  as  the  original,  it  may  still 
be  contended  that  even  the  Lukan  saying  implies  the 
severer  doctrine.  If  there  is  a  sin  which  cannot  be  forgiven, 
and  if  there  is  to  be  a  punishment  for  unforgiven  sin,  does 
not  this,  it  may  be  asked,  imply  an  everlasting  punishment? 
I  should  answer  ''  Certainly  not."  It  would  be  quite 
compatible  with  the  belief  in  the  extinction  of  unrepentant 
sinners  at  the  Judgement  or  after  an  interval  (and  this  was 
one  of  the  recognized  forms  of  Jewish  opinion  on  the 
subject),  or  with  a  terminable  punishment.  One  who  has 
suffered  the  full  punishment  due  to  his  sin  has  not,  in  the 
obvious  sense  of  the  word,  been  forgiven.  There  is  the 
utmost  uncertainty  about  the  exact  form  and  original 
import  of  this  mysterious  saying  about  "sinning  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  and  these  doubts  must  cast  a  certain  amount 
of  suspicion  upon  the  whole  saying.  Without  asserting 
that  the  expression  *'  Holy  Ghost  "  was  unknown  to  the 
rehgious  vocabulary  of  Jesus,  it  is  eminently  characteristic 
of  the  Evangehsts.  It  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  quite  possible 
that  the  whole  passage,  in  spite  of  its  high  external  attesta- 


300  Conscience  and  Chrtst 

tion.  may  have  grown  out  of  some  misunderstood  saying  of 
a  much  less  definite  character.  But,  if  it  is  genuine,  it  says 
no  more  than  this :  "  Other  sins  may  be  forgiven  at  the 
Judgement,  this  one  will  not  be  so  forgiven."  As  to  the 
consequence  of  condenmation,  nothing  is  determined. 

(5)  There  is  one  other  passage  in  Mark  which  may  be  held 
primd  facie  to  imply  the  doctrine  of  everlasting  pimishment. 
"  It  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed  rather  than 
having  two  hands  to  go  into  Gehenna,  into  the  imquench- 
able  fire,"  and  the  following  verses  ending  "  where  their 
worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched  "  (Mark  ix. 

43-48). 

Now  this  passage  is  the  equivalent  in  St.  Mark  oi  the 
passage  dted  above  from  the  first  Gospel  (xviii.  8).  If  it 
is  treated  as  the  original  form  of  the  sa3ang,  then  we  get  rid 
altogether  of  one  of  the  Matthean  passages  in  which  the 
word  aeonian  is  used,  and  the  suspicion  is  strengthened  that 
the  word  "  aeonian  "  belongs  to  the  ecclesiastical  vocabu- 
lary of  the  two  first  Evangelists.  In  that  case  all  the 
Matthean  passages  will  be  shown  not  to  be  exact  reports  of 
the  Lord's  saying.  But  it  may  be  asked  whether  Mark 
"  unquenchable  fire  "  does  not  imply  the  idea  of  an  ever- 
lasting punishment  no  less  expUcitly  and  even  in  a  more 
terrible  form.  I  do  not  think  so.  To  say  that  the  fire  is 
unquenchable  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  every  one 
who  is  plunged  into  it  will  remain  in  it  for  ever.  If  I  say 
that  at  a  certain  time  somebody  was  suffering  from  "  an 
imquenchable  thirst,"  I  do  not  say  that  he  continued  to 
suffer  from  it  even  for  the  rest  of  his  Ufe,  still  less  for  ever  ; 
I  only  mean  that  he  would  Uke  to  have  quenched  his  thirst, 
perhaps  tried  to  quench  it,  but  could  not.  The  fire  is  one 
which  those  who  find  themselves  in  it  have  no  power  to 
quench.  The  same  remark  appHes  to  the  expression  in  a 
later  verse,  "  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is 


Reward  and  Punishment  301 

not  quenched  *'  (Mark  ix.  48),  which  is  not  found  in 
Matthew.  I  do  not,  therefore,  regard  these  passages  as 
teaching  or  necessarily  implying  the  doctrine  of  an  ever- 
lasting punishment  which  no  repentance  can  avail  to  end. 

Moreover,  in  spite  of  the  prejudice  which  is  always 
excited  by  critical  conjectures  which  may  be  branded  as 
*'  convenient,"  I  cannot  help  feehng  a  strong  suspicion 
that  "  into  the  unquenchable  fire  '*  is  a  gloss  of  the  Evan- 
geHst,  and  that  the  original  saying  had  only  "  Gehenna  " 
or  '*  the  Gehenna  of  fire  "  (as  in  Matt,  xviii.  9  and  v.  29,  30), 
for  which  the  first  Evangehst  has  substituted  ''  the  aeonian 
fire,"  while  St.  Mark  has  expanded  it  by  an  explanation — 
an  explanation  by  no  means  superfluous  for  Gentile 
readers.  1  This  is  the  version  of  the  original  saying  which 
most  easily  explains  both  variants.  I  have  already  pointed 
out  that  all  the  expressions  used  by  our  Lord — Gehenna, 
unquenchable  fire,  *'  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth,"  etc., 
were  traditional  Jewish  terms,  which  need  not  be  sup- 
posed to  imply  "  everlasting  punishment "  if  they  did 
not  invariably  do  so  in  the  current  rabbinic  teaching  of 
the  time. 

(6)  And  this  last  remark  brings  us  to  the  whole  question 
of  contemporary  Jewish  opinion  on  the  subject.  I  admit 
that,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  belief  in  everlasting 
punishment  was  the  established  Jewish  belief  of  the  time 
(outside  the  conservative  Sadducean  circles),  the  prima  facie 
conclusion  would  be — for  those  who  are  unwilling  to  admit 
that  the  religious  insight  of  Jesus  rose  far  above  the  general 
level  of  His  time — that  Jesus  shared  that  behef.  But  this 
is  not  the  conclusion  to  which  the  best  authorities  on  the 

^  Dalman  pronounces  that  the  Aramaic  equivalent  of  Gehenna 
*'  is  the  one  term  whose  use  by  Jesus  is  assured,  since  all  three 
Synoptists  record  it  among  the  words  of  Jesus "  (The  Words  of 
Jesus,  I,  161). 


302  Conscience  and  Christ 

subject  have  actually  come.  There  were  many  views 
current  as  to  the  future  destiny  of  the  wicked.  And  among 
them  was  certainly  the  view  that  the  wicked  were  ulti- 
mately extinguished.^  Our  Lord  cannot  be  defini*  "  wn 
to  have  adopted  the  severest  view.    We  are  surel}  led 

upon  to  believe  that  He  adopted  that  one  of  the  current 
opinions  which  was  most  difficult  to  reconcile  with  His  own 
teaching  about  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  though  it  may  well 
be  that,  in  the  depth  of  His  stem  indignation  against  sin. 
He  may  have  used  severe  but  vague  prophetic  language 
without  expressly  attempting  to  reconcile  it  with  His 
other  great  conviction  about  the  love  of  God. 

(7)  There  are  a  few  passages  which,  without  explicitly 
teaching  the  doctrine  of  an  everiasting  Hell,  have  sometimes 
been  regarded  as  pointing  in  that  direction,  e.g.  the  saying 
"  broad  is  the  way  that  leadeth  to  destruction  "  (Matt. 
\ii.  13).  This  saying  is  Matthean  only,  but  it  has  a  fairly 
close  Lukan  parallel  in  "  Many  .  .  .  shall  seek  to  enter  in. 
and  shall  not  be  able  "  (Luke  xiii.  24).  These  words  in  Luke 
are  followed  by  the  passage  beginning  "  When  once  the 
master  of  the  house  "  and  ending  "  Depart  from  me,  all  ye 
of  iniquity.  There  shall  be  the  weeping  and 
.^  ,-;  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see  Abraham  and  Isaac 

and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets,  in  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
and  yourselves  cast  forth  without.  And  they  shall  come 
iruin  the  east  and  west."  etc.  (xiii.  25-28).  Now  here  it 
may  be  observed  that  these  last  words  are  freely  rejected 
by  many  critics  (including  Mr.  Montefiore)  for  their 
Universalism.*  and  on  that  hypothesis  the  whole  passage 

>  In  the  Ethiopic  Enoch  the  MetsUh  will  "  destroy  them  from 
the  face  of  the  earth  "  (Sim.  xlv.  6,  cf.  Ixii.  2).  I  win  not  attempt  to 
coUect  the  views  of  other  ApocalyptisU.  but  will  refer  generally  to 
Canon  Charles's  Etekaiology.  Cf.  Thackeray.  The  Relation  of  St. 
Paul  to  ConUmporary  Jewish  Thought,  p.  116. 

■  But  see  above,  p.  no. 


Reward  and  Punishment  303 

might  be  considered  doubtful.  But  I  am  not  myself  dis- 
posed to  adopt  this  view,  and  apart  from  this  I  see  no 
reason  for  doubting  the  genuineness  of  the  passage  except 
that  xiii.  28  follows  rather  abruptly  upon  xiii.  27,  and 
suggests  a  separate  saying  brought  into  this  context. 
But  to  say  that  some  of  the  consequences  of  persistent  sin 
against  the  light  are  irreversible,  is  a  very  different  thing 
from  saying  that  its  punishment  shall  be  endless.  All  the 
sayings  would  be  compatible  with  extinction  ;  indeed, 
Matthew's  ''  destruction  "  might  naturally  be  understood 
as  pointing  to  that  view.  But  they  need  not  imply  any- 
thing so  definite  as  that.  There  is,  indeed,  nothing  about 
punishment  at  all,  but  only  about  an  irreversible  loss.  To 
suppose  that  opportunities  lost  in  this  Ufe  may  never  recur 
is  certainly  not  an  immoral  opinion,  or  one  which  implies 
a  low  conception  of  the  divine  character.^  And  if  any- 
one feels  bound  to  hold  that  in  some  sense  that  belief  in 
everlasting  punishment  which  eventually  became  the  tra- 
ditional tenet  of  the  Church  must  be  true,  he  can 
rationalize  it  by  understanding  it  in  this  sense,  and  saying 
that  the  punishment  is  simply  a  "  poena  damni,"  which 
need  not  exclude  the  hope  of  much  progress  in  goodness  or 
of  much  happiness. 

The  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus,  as  reported  by  St. 
Luke  (xvi.  24),  is  the  only  passage  in  his  Gospel  in  which 
Hell  (Hades)  is  actually  spoken  of  as  a  place  of  torment, 
but  here  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  whether  the  torment 
was  to  have  an  end  or  not.  It  was  for  the  time  being  im- 
possible for  Lazarus  to  revisit  the  earth  during  the  lifetime 
of  his  brethren,  not  necessarily  for  ever.  That  is  all  that 
the  words  need  mean.     It  may  even  be  suggested  that 

^  Other  passages  sometimes  appealed  to  are  Matt.  vii.  21-23, 
X.  33  ;  Luke  ix.  26.  But  they  do  not  necessarily  or  even  naturally 
imply  anything  more  than  condemnation  at  the  Judgement. 


304  Conscience  and  Christ 

our  Lord's  reply  implies  that  it  was  still  open  to  them  to 
hear  Moses  and  the  prophets. 

(8)  On  the  other  hand  there  are  a  few  passages  which 
certainly  suggest  that  the  punishment  of  the  >^ncked  is  not 
endless.  The  most  definite  is,  "  But  rather  fear  Him  which 
is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  Gehenna  "  (Matt. 
X.  28).  Luke  has  simply  "  hath  power  to  cast  into  Gehenna" 
(xii.  5).  If  the  Matthean  version  be  accepted,  we  shall  have 
a  distinct  reason  for  supposing  that  our  Lord  did  not  think 
of  punishment  in  Gehenna  as  involving  everlasting  torment. 
And,  indeed,  the  inconsistency  of  this  passage,  taken  in  its 
literal  and  natural  sense,  with  the  doctrine  of  everlasting 
pimishment  will  be  additional  e\idence  either  for  doubting 
the  genuineness  of  the  "  aeonian  "  passages  in  Matthew  or 
for  supposing  that  our  Lord  did  not  regard  "  aeonian 
punishment "  as  implying  everlasting  continuance  in 
suffering.  But  perhaps,  after  all,  the  probabilities  are 
rather  in  favour  of  Luke's  8tfii{der  venmi — "  to  cast  into 
Gehenna." 

Then  there  is  the  sajdng,  "  What  doth  it  profit  a 
man  to  gain  the  whole  world  and  forfeit  his  hfe  ?  " 
(Mark  viii.  36).  If  we  must  not  modernize  so  far  as 
to  give  the  passage  a  meaning  which  has  no  reference 
at  all  to  the  question  of  future  reward  and  punish- 
ment, the  obvious  impUcation  certainly  is  that  the  wicked 
ultimately  cease  to  live.  Another  passage  which  may 
be  appealed  to  in  this  connexion  is  "  many  that  are 
first  shall  be  last  "  (Matt.  xix.  30).  To  be  last  in  entering 
the  Kingdom  (if  this  be  the  meaning  of  being  "  last  ")  is 
not  the  same  thing  as  being  shut  out  from  it  altogether. 
(But  perhaps,  as  Dr.  Moflat  suggests,  this  was  originally 
a  quite  uneschatological  saying.  Cf.  Mark  ix.  35.) 
"  Thou  shalt  by  no  means  come  out  thence  till  thou  hast 
paid  the  uttermost  farthing  "  (Matt.  v.  26 ;   Luke  xii.  59) 


Reward  and  Punishment  305 

may  be  cited  as  suggesting  that  there  is  a  possibiHty  of 
coming  out  (cf.  Matt.  xii.  32).  Still  more  noticeable  is 
"  resurrection  of  the  just*'  in  Luke  xiv.  14.    Cf.  xx.  35. 

If  these  passages  are  not  sufficiently  trustworthy  or 
explicit  to  enable  us  definitely  to  attribute  to  our  Lord  the 
doctrine  that  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  not  endless, 
we  have  at  least  some  reason  for  suspecting  or  otherwise 
interpreting  every  passage  which  is  used  to  defend  the 
opposite  doctrine.  On  the  whole,  the  truth  of  the  matter 
seems  to  be  that  the  thoughts  of  Jesus  about  the  future 
of  human  souls  did  not  generally  travel  far  beyond  the 
moment  of  the  Kingdom's  coming.  Unrepented  sin  would 
involve  condemnation  at  the  Judgement  and  exclusion 
from  the  Kingdom,  which  was  thought  of  as  in  itself  the 
direst  of  penalties,  and  doubtless  as  involving  further 
penalties.  What  those  penalties  were,  and  whether  after 
a  period  of  suffering  there  would  be  further  opportunities 
of  repentance — these  are  questions  which  Jesus  does  not 
answer,  perhaps  did  not  put  to  Himself,  still  more  probably 
did  not  feel  to  be  revealed  to  Him — any  more  than  the  day 
and  the  hour  of  the  Judgement  were  revealed  to  Him. 

On  the  whole  then  we  may  say  that  from  the  most 
severely  critical  and  objective  point  of  view  the  answer  to 
our  question  as  to  whether  Jesus  taught  the  doctrine  of 
everlasting  punishment  must  be  non  liquet  •  the  evidence 
that  He  did  is  quite  inadequate  to  prove  that  He  did,  if 
the  suggestion  cannot  be  decisively  refuted.  Those  to 
whom,  from  their  beUef  in  the  supreme  depth  of  His  moral 
and  spiritual  insight,  there  seems  to  be  a  great  improba- 
bility in  His  having  held  a  doctrine  which  strikes  them  as 
religiously  shocking  and  inconsistent  with  the  general 
tenor  of  His  own  teaching  about  God,  will  feel  themselves 
justified  in  going  a  step  further  and  saying, ''  It  is  probable 
that  He  did  not  teach  it."    The  most  that  seems  at  all 


3o6  Conscience  and  Christ 

likely  is  that  He  may  have  acquiesced  in  conventional 
representations  of  the  punishment  of  sin  which,  without 
actually  speaking  of  everlasting  torments,  did  not  expUcitly 
contemplate  a  place  for  repentance  after  the  Judgement  or 
a  termination  of  penal  suffering. 

The  probability  of  this  conclusion  may  be  strengthened 
by  the  consideration  that  such  a  doctrine  is  conspicuously 
absent  from  St.  Paul  (this  is  evidence  also  against  the 
general  acceptance  of  it  by  contemporary  Rabbinism), 
and  by  the  fact  that  it  was  long  before  it  became  the 
settled  belief  of  the  Church. 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES  IN  THE   GOSPELS 
COMMENTED  ON  OR  REFERRED  TO 


latt.  iv.  2 

PAGE 

Matt 

X.  6 

PACK 

.     no 

—     iv.  17     . 

.         130 

— 

X.  9,  10 

.     151 

—  V.  3 

—  V.  17-18 

—  v.  17-20 

.         124 
.            96 

— 

X.  23      . 

X.  28      . 
X.  33      . 

45.46 
.     304 
.     303 

—  V.  20 

—  V.  24 

.        '51 
.      121 

~~~" 

X.  37      . 

X.38      . 

.     151 
.     122 

—  V.  26 

—  V.  28      . 

•     304 
.     127 

~— 

xi.  7-30 
xi.  12     . 

183-4 
.       52 

—  V.  29-30 

—  V.  32 

.     301 
.      104 



xi.  17-19 
xi.  21-5 

.     158 
.     182 

—     V.  39-40 

143-4 

— 

xii.  1-8 

.     100 

—  V.  42 

—  V.  43-8 

.      141 
.      120 

z 

xii.  9-14 
xii.  12    . 

.     100 
.       95 

—  V.  45      . 

—  vi.  1-6  . 

—  vi.  16-18 

.     113 

.      133 

133,  160 

— 

xii.  32    . 
xii.  48    . 
xiii.  24  . 

.  296-7,304 
.     178 
.        53 

— .     vi.  19-34 
—     vi.  29     . 

.     124 
.     164 



xiii.  31  . 
xiii.  33  . 

.       52 
.       53 

—     vi.  34     . 

.     188 

— 

xiii.  41  . 

.       49 

—  vii.  1-3 

—  vii.  6      . 

.     126 
.     177 



xiii.  52  . 
XV.  5      . 

.       55 

87,88 

—     vii.  13    . 

.     302 

— 

XV.  11-20 

.        lOI 

—  vii.  21    . 

—  vii.  21-3 

—  viii.  4     . 

.       57 
.     303 
.       97 

— 

XV.  24    . 
XV.  26    . 
xvi.  24-6 

.     no 
175-6 
122-3 

—     viii.  II  . 

.     no 

— 

xvi.  28  . 

.       45 

—     viii.  22  . 

.     179 

— 

xviii.  1-4 

.      124 

—  viii.  36  . 

—  ix.  14     . 

—  ix.  15-16 

.     304 
.     158 
.     160 

— 

xviii.  3  . 
xviii.  6,  7 
xviii.  8  . 

•       53 
.      133 
.     296 

—     X.  1-15 

.     124 

— 

xviii.  9  . 

.     301 

307 


3o8      Index  of  Passages  in  the  Gospels 


rAu« 

PACS 

Matt,  zviii.  lo 

.      133 

Mark 

u.  18-22 

158-60 

— 

xviii.  13 

132 

— 

ii.  23-8  . 

100 

— 

xviii.  17 

149 

— 

ii.27      . 

95 

— 

xviii.  21-35 

121 

— 

ii.  28      . 

95 

— 

xix.  3-10 

104,  127 

iii.  1-6  . 

100 

— 

xix.  12  . 

162,  163 

— 

iii.  29 

298 

— 

xix.  13-4 

124-5 

— 

">  33 

178 

— 

xix.  19  . 

108  5^. 

— 

iv.  26 

53 

— 

xix.  21  . 

.        124 

— 

iv.  31 

52 

— 

xix.  24  . 

124 

■ — 

vi.  5 

95 

— 

xix.  28  . 

51 

— 

vi.  8.  9  . 

150.  151 

— 

xix.  30  . 

304 

— 

VU.4      . 

87,  88 

— 

XX.  1-15 

170-2 

— 

vii.  18-22 

lOI 

— 

XX.  16    . 

172 

— 

vii.  27    . 

75.  176 

— 

XX.  23    . 

51 

— 

viii.  34  . 

122.123 

— 

xxi.  12  . 

173-5 

— 

viU.  36  . 

.    304 

— 

xxi.  19  . 

173 

— 

ix.  I 

45 

— 

xxi.  28.  29 

112.131 

— 

ix.  29 

159 

— 

xxi.  31  . 

5a 

— 

ix.35 

304 

— . 

xxii.  II 

57 

— 

ix,4^ 

133 

— 

xxii.  14 

•     17a 

— 

ix.  43-S 

29O.  300,  301 

— 

xxii.  39 

io8f#f..286 

— 

X.  II.  12 

104.  105 

— 

xxiii.  2-3 

98 

— 

X.  14       . 

125 

— 

148 

— 

X.  15 

53 

— 

xxiii.  23 

98 

— 

X.  18 

126. 184 

— 

xxiii.  39 

45 

— 

X.  21 

.      190 

— 

xxiv.  32 

173 

— 

X.  25 

124 

— 

xxiv.  36 

46 

— 

X.  40       . 

51 

— 

XXV.  14-30 

173 

— 

Xi.  I2«20 

.     173 

— 

XXV.  19 

48 

— 

xi.  15     . 

173-5 

— 

XXV.  30 

296 

— 

xi.  25     . 

121 

— 

XXV.  31 

48 

— 

xii.  31    . 

X08  s#^.,  286 

— 

XXV.  40 

288 

— 

XU.34    . 

.       53 

— 

XXV.  41 

296 

— 

xiii.  10  . 

no 

— 

XXV.  46 

296 

— 

xiii.  28  . 

.     173 

— 

xxvi.  29 

.       45 

— 

xiii.  32  . 

.      46 

— 

xxvi.  63-4 

47.  148 

— 

xiv.  9 

no 

— 

xxviii.  19 

no 

— 

xiv.  25  . 

45 

— 

xiv.  62  . 

.       47 

Mark  i.  13 

159 

— 

i.  15 

•     130 

Luke  ii.  52 

.     176 

— 

i.  44       . 

97 

— 

iv.  1-2    . 

.      159 

Index  of  Passages  in  the  Gospels        309 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Luke  V.  14 

.       97 

Luke  xiv.  7-1 1 

187 

—    V.  33-9  . 

158, 160 

—    xiv.  14   . 

305 

—    vi.  1-5    . 

.     100 

—    xiv.  25-6 

151 

—    vi.  6-1 1 

.     100 

—     xiv.  26  . 

152 

—    vi.  20      . 

.    124 

—    xiv.  33 

152 

—    vi.  27-35 

113, 120 

—     XV.  7-8  . 

132 

—    vi.  29     . 

143.144 

—    XV.  n-32        .       12 

.1.130 

—    vi.  30     . 

.    141 

—    xvi.  1-8 

169 

—    vi.  35     . 

.    113 

—    xvi.  9 

170 

—    vi.  37     . 

.     126 

—    xvi.  16   . 

52 

—    vi.  41 

.    126 

—    xvi.  17   . 

96 

—    vi.  46-8 

.       57 

—    xvi.  19   . 

124 

—    vii.  9      . 

.      Ill 

—    xvi.  24   . 

303 

—    vii.  31-4 

.      158 

—    xvii.  I,  2 

133 

—    viii.  21    . 

.     178 

—    xvii.  3,  4          .        i: 

JI.  149 

—    ix.  3       . 

.      151 

—    xvii.  10  . 

173 

—    ix.  23      . 

.      122 

—    xvii.  20—1 

52 

—    ix.  26      . 

.     303 

—    xvii.  33  . 

123 

—    ix.  27      . 

.        45 

—    xviii.  9-14       .        1 4 

16.  130 

—    ix.  55      • 

.      100 

—    xviii.  16 

125 

—    ix.  60      . 

.      179 

—    xviii.  17 

53 

—    X.  13       . 

.      182 

—    xviii.  19 

.      126 

—    X.  21 

.      182 

—    xviii.  25 

124 

—    X,  27       . 

108  seq. 

—    xix.  9     . 

.      152 

—    X.  30  seq. 

.      112 

—    xix.  11-27       •          ' 

|8,  173 

—    xi.  20     . 

.        51 

—    xix.  45   . 

173-5 

—    xi.  40 

.      148 

—    XX.  35     . 

.     305 

—    xi.  42      . 

.       98 

—    xxi.  36   . 

49 

—    xii.  5 

.     304 

—    xxii.  18  . 

45 

—    xii.  16    . 

.      124 

—    xxii.  26  . 

125 

—    xii.  27    . 

.      165 

—    xxii.  30  . 

51 

—    xii.  59     . 

.     304 

—    xxii.  69  . 

47 

—    xiii.  6-7 

•      173 

—    xxiv.  25 

148 

—    xiii.  19   . 

.       52 

—    xiii.  21    . 

•       53 

John  ii.  15 

173-5 

—    xiii.  24-8 

.       302, 303 

—    viii.  46    . 

185 

—    xiii.  25   . 

.       49 

—    xi.  5 

190 

—    xiii.  29   . 

.     no 

—    xiv.  II    . 

35 

—    xiii.  35   . 

.       45 

—    XX.  2 

190 

INDEX 


Almsgiving,  83,  91,    141,   150, 

230 
Amos,  80,  84 
Aristotle,  80,  82,  129,  190,  210, 

241 
Arnold,  Matthew,  102 
Arya  Somaj,  271 
Asceticism,       156-65,      211-13, 

235-6 
Augustine,  St.,  213,  260 
Aurelius,  Marcus,  242,  244  seq., 

248-52 
Authority  in  Ethics,  14  5^^. 

Bacon,  Prof.  R.  W.,  76 

Bernhardi,  Gen.,  223  n. 

Bradley,  F.  H.,  19 

Bradley,  Prof.  Andrew,  115 

Brahmo  Somaj,  271  seq.,  277 

Buddhism,  264-71 

Burkitt,    Prof.,    92  n.,     105  n., 

149  n. 
Butler,  Bishop,  3,  249  n. 

Charles,  Canon,  92  n.,  302 
Cicero,  210 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  163,  213 
Confucianism,  277 
Conscience,    Nature    and     au- 
thority of,  7-35 
Corban,  87-8 

Dalman,  Prof.,  54  n.,  301  n. 


Development  in  Ethics,  167-8, 

195-238 
Divorce,  32,  81,  103-7,  230 
Dobschiitz,  Prof,  von,  51,  52  n-» 

238 

Ecclesiasticus,  82,  92 
Egoism,  137 

Egyptians,  Gospel  of,  163 
Emmet,  Rev.  C.  W.,  76  n. 
Enoch,  Book  of,  42,  48  n.,  302 
Epictetus,  242,  245  seq. 
Eschatology,  36-76,  151,  235-6. 

See  also  Punishment 
Ezekiel,  89 

Fasting,  95.  157-62,  235 
Forgiveness,  120-2,  145  seq.,  237 

Gardner,  Prof.,  210 
Garrod,  H.  W.,  1 90-1,  194 
Good,  Christian  conception  of, 

126-7,  165  ^^^•'  ^99  seq. 
Gore,    Dr.    Charles,    Bishop    of 

Oxford,  105 
Green,  T.  H.,  241 

Haldvy,  M.,  112  n. 
Harnack,  Prof.,  183  n..  208 
Hartmann,  E.  von,  137  n. 
Hebrews,  Epistle  to,  237 
Hegel,  19.  21 


311 


312 


Index 


Herford,  R.  T.,  50 n.,  5711.,  5811., 

87  n.,  88  n. 
Hillel,  92,  105 
Hindooism.  263-4 
Holtzmann.  Oscar,  100  n. 
Humility,  124-6,  229  seq,,  249 
Hypocrisy.  133 

Interimsethik.  44  S4q. 
Isaiah,  80,  84,  85 

Jackson,  Dr.  Latimer.  76  n. 
John,  St.,  Gospel  and  Epistles  of, 

185-6,  228  $$q. ;    Apocalypse 

of.  234 
Judaism,  84  seq.,  258-9,   272 

Mf..etc. 
Justice,  84  $§q, 

Kant,  3.  II.  58.  70.  71  n. 

Lindsay,  Dr.  T.  M..  48 
Lodge,  Prof.  Oliver,  130 
Loisy.  43  n..  45  n..  96  n.,  100  n., 

loi  n.,  152  n.,  162.  172,  177. 

178 
Love,  Christian  law  of,  X08-14. 

150  seq.,    163  s$q.,   189  $$q., 

328  s$q.,  286-9.  etc. 

MacDougall.  W..  9 

Ifarriage,  81,  103-4,  162-3.  223 

M^-.    330,     236.      S$4    also 

Divorce 
Martinean,  James,  183 
Blanrice,  F.  D.,  40,  41 
Mercy,  83,  85 

MootiAoce,  dande.  59  n.,  75  n., 

76  n.,  88  n.,  105  n.,  112  n., 
ii6n.,  X23,  150 n..  179-83. 
189.  29i-4 


Moore,  G.  A.,  137  n. 
Moral  Sense,  doctrine  of,  9 

Neo-platonism.  2x2 
Newman.  Cardinal,  31 
Nicholas  de  Ultricuha.  139  n. 
Nietzsche,  137,  223 

Oaths,  106,  148  n. 

Origen,  213 

Oxford.  Bishop  of,  X05 

Parousia.    See  Eschatology 
Fanee  Religion.  261-3 
Pattison,  Mark,  252-3 
Paul.  St.,  100,  155.  227  ssq.,  306 
Peter.  St..  Epistles  of.  232  ssq. 
Pharisftf ,  86ssy..  95  ^'»  '79  J^- 
Philanthropy,  83.   Su  also  Love 
Plato,  58,  79,  80,  83,  129.  241 
Polygamy,  80,  103 
Ptoperty,      Christ's      teaching 

abottt,  X50-6 
Protestantism,  214  seq. 
Ptoverbs,  Book  of.  82 
Prudence,  187-9 
Punishment.  Future.  290-306 
Purity,  81,  X03, 127, 128 

Repentance.  139-31 
Riches,    Christ's    attitude    to- 
wards, 123  ss^. 
Royce.  Prof.,  126-7 

Sabbath,  Christ's  attitude  to- 
wards. 95 

Schmiedel.  Prof..  46 

Schweitier.  Dr.,  38  n..  43.  44  n., 
570. 

Self-sacrifice.  133 

Selwyn,  Rev.  E.  G..  78  n..  106 n.. 
281-2  n. 

Seneca,  343-4,  246-7 


Index 


313 


Shammai,  92,  105 
Sinlessness  of  Jesus,  184-6 
Slavery,  233-4 

Socialism,  155-6,  198-9,  225-6 
Socrates,  79,  80,  83,  84 
Stephen,  St.,  227 
Stephen,  Sir  Leslie,  142 
Stoics,  78,  129,  242-54 
Streeter,  Canon,  52  n.,  76  n.,  299 
Supererogation,  Works  of,  155 
Swearing.    See  Oaths 

Talmud,  92-4,  etc. 

Testaments      of     the     Twelve 

Patriarchs,  51  n.,  92 
Thackeray,  H.  St.  J.,  302 
Theophrastus,  241 
Thomas  k  Kempis,  21  y  seq. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  210,  219 
Toleration,  180-1,  237,  251 


Tolstoi,  Count,  140 
Treitschke,  223  n. 
Troeltsch,  Prof.,  1990.,  214 
Tyrrell,  Father,  67,  68.  1670. 
288  n. 

Universalism,  109-13,  227-8 
Utilitarianism,  11-13 


Veracity,  107,  229  seq. 
Oaths 


See  also 


Wellhausen,  Prof.,  93-4,  183 
Wells,  H.  G.,  233 
Westermarck,  Prof.,  9 
Wisdom,  Book  of,  82,  92 

Zeno,  79,  242,  250  n.     See  also 

Stoics 
Zoroastrianism,  261-2 


WM.  wmmnom  a«o  ton,  Lto. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THB  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  flOO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


/  ^ 


IIAB21  1934 


FEB    10   1936 


.nAll    lH}iiA? 


23Jur5ICF 


^lysuif 


imt 


LD  21-100m-7.'33 


a 


YB  70590 


-  Ir 


341150 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


I 


.•iiiiiiiiiiii^Liiitiimiii 


.ii:n...i..i;ii!i.iii 


